Submitted by Open Source infighting over the GPLv3 just turned nastier – in a post on the Linux kernel mailing list, Linus Torvalds effectively called the authors of the GPLv3 ‘hypocritical morons’. InformationWeek has reported on the issue: “Linux creator Linus Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites and likened them to religious fanatics – the latest sign of a growing schism in the open source community between business-minded developers like Torvalds and free software purists.”
Linus never said such a thing, the article simply misquotes him and takes what he said out of context.
And the articles author knew it, that’s why he didn’t even bother to link the Linus’ post he was refering to.
So why does this incredible disgusting article come up on every newspage? What about even some minimal journalistic standards?
Thom, do you post every last crap as long as it looks like a nice opportunity for a flamewar?
Hear, hear!
Even the posted quoted from InfoWeek characterizing “business-minded developers like Torvalds and free software purists.” is a naive (at best), stupid (at a minimum), and misleading (hey, your bias is showing!).
I suppose this constitutes a flame. I won’t defend it; this is a dead and boring subject. Maybe I’ll read another GPL flamewar next year when the consequences GPL3 have played out a bit. Lets MoveOn.org OSNews…
Present for Thom! Here’s a link, written by an FSFE member, about the above shitty article.
http://www.fsdaily.com/Opposition/Misleading_InformationWeek_GPLv3_…
tinyurl: http://linkpot.net/unmatched/
Controversial article = annoyed readers = more comments = more page views = more ads in your eyes = more click through = more commissions for osnews.com
This “article” was nothing short, in my opinion, of an attempt to incite an argument.
This site badly needs a function to vote articles down.
This site badly needs a function to vote articles down.
Then I’d never see any non-Linux articles.
Edited 2007-07-16 04:42
Hahhaha
“””
“This site badly needs a function to vote articles down.”
Then I’d never see any non-Linux articles.
“””
No problem. They could just make it official policy that you should only vote stories down for atrocious journalism and not just because you don’t like them. After you clicked the “-“, you could go to a page where you could either click “This story is attrocious journalism” or “I don’t like this story”. If you click that you don’t like it, the vote would not be counted and you would be taken back to the page you were on.
Unless you think that someone might *abuse* a system like that? I doubt that OSNews readers would do that.
Linus never said such a thing…
So, his words on the lkml are… Fake? A joke? Posted by someone else? What?
Were his words directed at the GPL3 authors?
No, they weren’t.
Were they said in a different context?
Yes, they were.
So does posting this article meat minimal journalistic standards?
No, it doesn’t.
Were his words directed at the GPL3 authors?
No, they weren’t.
Linus is in a discussion with several people about the GPLv3. Linus brings up how the GPLv3 limits the “right of choice” of others. Then, he says: “And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.” And then you argue that that line is NOT directed at GPLv3 authors and supporters?
If you do not see how that is directed at the GPLv3 authors and supporters, then you really don’t know how to read.
It may indirectly meant for them, but it’s a more general statement. If GPLv3 authors and supporters happen to fall under his statement, oh well. Linus is right anyway. Not his fault if they fall under that.
Besides, by saying he’s directing it at them, it’s saying you think GPLv3 authors/supports dont think others have the
“right to choice.”
Do you believe that?
It is directed at people who are trying to tell him he’s wrong for choosing GPLv2 over GPLv3. It’s therefore entirely correct and fair. Anyone who is campaigning for ‘freedom’ by telling people what to do needs to re-examine their methods.
Thom, you were really desperate for this flamewar, weren’t you?
So the article claims that he Linus called the authors of the GPL3 “hypocritical morons”. Now, did he actually do this?
No, he didn’t.
So, what did he do?
In a discussion about the GPL3 somebody brought up one argument and Linus tells him that people using this particular argument are “hypocritical morons”.
Now, you seem to have been aware that that is a far cry from what the article alledges, that’s why instead of simply posting the beginning of the article as usual, you wrote a teaser on your own, this time stating he didn’t actually call him that, but “effectively”.
And now you’re at it again. You still want to spin what Linus said into an all out condemnation of the authors of the GPL3. Thom, that’s pathetic.
Edited 2007-07-15 17:13
Now, you seem to have been aware that that is a far cry from what the article alledges, that’s why instead of simply posting the beginning of the article as usual, you wrote a teaser on your own, this time stating he didn’t actually call him that, but “effectively”.
That’s because, as I said, you DO need to read between the lines in order to see who the lines were directed at. I tried *very* hard, before posting this article, to imagine what those lines meant if they were *not* directed at the GPLv3 authors and promoters… And I failed.
Even Linus agrees with my position, reading his latest reply. Linus writes [1]:
—
“I don’t disagree that “morals” are something very personal, and you can thus never really argue on morals *except*for*your*own*behaviour*.
So I claim that for *me* the right choice is GPLv2 (or something similar). I think the GPLv3 is overreaching.
There’s a very fundamental, and very basic rule that is often a good
guideline. It’s “Do unto others”.
So the reason I *personally* like the GPLv2 is that it does unto others
exactly what I wish they would do unto me.
It allows everybody do make that choice that I consider to be really
important: the choice of how something _you_ designed gets used.
And it does that exactly by *limiting* the license to only that one work.
Not trying to extend it past the work.”
—
That fits perfectly well within the line of thought about where the “moron” claim was directed at, as that claim read:
“And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.”
And who is the ‘anybody’ here? Quite clearly, the people who are advocating and who wrote the exact license that, according to Linus, limits people’s “right of choice”.
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
Thom, you don’t even have to read between the lines, as Linus clears up what he meant in the very same post you now linked to, but obviously failed to read (not between the lines, but simply read):
> To call people who draw the line in a different place than you
> hypocrites is BS.
That was *not* what I did.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice,
it’s just not *mine*.
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
make my own choice.
See? THAT is hypocritical.
P.S.:
So all you can come up with to support the posting of this article is not, I repeat not, that Linus actually said what you and the article report, but that you take him to have meant it (leaving out all context), because you failed to imagine that he could have meant something else, though you obviously weren’t sure what he meant, as you gave it a long hard thought.
Thom, I don’t know what to call this, but journalism it ain’t.
This whole situation reminds me of a quote on bash.org.
Person 1: YOU ALL SUCK $%@!
Person 1: err, hi.
Person 2: common typo
Person 3: the keys are like right next to each other
Thom wrote:
“And who is the ‘anybody’ here? Quite clearly, the people who are advocating and who wrote the exact license that, according to Linus, limits people’s “right of choice”. “
ahh please stop it before I lose the respect I have for you Thom. his remarks here are NOT against gplv3 or it’s authors. hell, he takes great care in emphasizing that this is about his PERSONAL preference regarding which licence he chooses. and the “right to choice” is so OBVIOUSLY about those who are trying to coerce him into switching to gplv3 and thus trying to limit HIS freedom of choice.
there is nothing in this article that says “Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors ‘Hypocrites” no matter how desperately you try to ‘read between the lines’.
I haven’t seen any GPLv3 authors telling Linus that he is doing something wrong by choosing GPLv2 over GPLv3. It is therefore obvious that Linus’ comments were not directed at the GPLv3 authors. If you can provide some examples of *people actually involved in writing GPLv3* telling Linus that he is doing something wrong (rather than *something they personally do not agree with*, or *something different from what they would have done in his position*, neither of which are the same), then you will have proved that Linus’ comments were aimed at someone involved in writing GPLv3. Until then, you have not proved your point. It’s quite obvious that you’re feeling vulnerable on this point by the fact that you added the weasel qualifier “and promoters” – well, yes, indeed, his comment was aimed at overzealous GPLv3 promoters, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
No, it doesn’t. You’re taking a statement from Linus taken out of context and put into another context where it doesn’t belong while claiming you are reading between lines (meaning: reading something which wasn’t written, nor intended to be said or even hinted at or anything else like that).
Well if you can’t tell the difference between a direct personal insult and a bold rethoric statement, it’s quite obviously you who missed a couple of english classes. Calling people acting stupid morons (in their face) is a subtly different thing than refering to people acting stupidly as morons.
That said, I like the general idea of destroying all intellectual property claims whatsoever, but in a real world that might not be the most pragmatic way of dealing with things. However, as always it is already to late. Mode blood will be shed over this…
I respectfully disagree. The posting (a) adds useful and relevant information to the InformationWeek article, and (b) avoids injecting particular bias in posting.
I consider that to be well within journalistic standards.
[edited to correct publication name]
Edited 2007-07-16 00:00
“Linus never said such a thing… ”
And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then
tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.
Linus
“To call people who draw the line in a different place than you hypocrites is BS.” — quoted in Linus’s reply
“That was *not* what I did.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice,
it’s just not *mine*.
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
make my own choice.
See? THAT is hypocritical.
Linus”
From what I can see this is being blown WAY out of proportion. I don’t think Linus was out of line when he said what he did. I understand that some people think that someone in his “position of power” should really consider everything he says on a public mailing list… honestly I don’t see why he can’t just say what he wants. He is completely in his rights to express his frustration with the GPL3. Linus doesn’t just see a license when it comes to OSS licensing, he also considers the attitude that comes with it.
“So I claim that for *me* the right choice is GPLv2 (or something similar).
I think the GPLv3 is overreaching.
There’s a very fundamental, and very basic rule that is often a good guideline. It’s “Do unto others”.
So the reason I *personally* like the GPLv2 is that it does unto others exactly what I wish they would do unto me.”
Software rights are not the only thing in question, which is what Linus considers in his argument.
I don’t want to bring it up, but I never see this issue when it comes to BSD licensed software, probably because the license is simple and to the point. I was hoping good things for the GPL3, so far it’s been a bumpy start. Samba dev’s changing over was what I thought to be as the start of it all just smoothing out. Suppose I was wrong.
Let’s not take statements out of context and try to start a pointless flame war, OK?
About something else entirely.
Linus replied in his list to someone whining about Tivo. It got misreported as the Attack Upon The FSF from the Great and Powerful Linus in a move of poor journalism. That’s pretty much it.
Thom, please include a link to the post with “his words on the lkml” – it would make your argument stronger and let us see the context in which they were said.
The ikml post in question is the second link above.
That pre-supposes that Thom is actually making an argument. I don’t interpret it that way – it looks like he posted a link to a newsworthy article. The concept of “newsworthiness” makes no judgement as to the quality of writing, journalism, etc. And considering that the format of OSNews is essentially “meta-journalism” (news based on what other sites are posting as news), this certainly qualifies.
The site is called “OS News,” not “OS News – but only the news that we approve of and fully agree with.” That’s not how journalism works.
That said, the post could do with a little equivocation in the non-quoted portion – to make it more clear that OSNews is reporting on the claim made by IW, not actually making the claim.
That pre-supposes that Thom is actually making an argument. I don’t interpret it that way – it looks like he posted a link to a newsworthy article.
Look at his posts, he clearly made an argument (or at least tried to).
And the article isn’t newsworthy, but simply a lie.
The site is called “OS News,” not “OS News – but only the news that we approve of and fully agree with.” That’s not how journalism works.
Well, maybe I’m wrong, but I wasn’t aware that posting factually wrong, intentionally misleading articles is the same as posting an article you don’t fully agree with.
You’re presenting a false-dichotomy – accuracy and news-worthiness are not mutually-exclusive. If that were the case, then (for example) Nixon’s “I am not a crook” statement would not have been newsworthy, due to it being a bald-faced lie. I really hope it’s not necessary to explain why something like that is, in fact, newsworthy.
Which is a valid criticism of InformationWeek, not of OSNews. There is a distinction between posting an article, in the role of a news site – and posting a link to an article, in the role of a news aggregate site.
No, but they are misrepresented.
He doesn’t mention GPL3 and he doesn’t say anything about the authors about GPL3.
This is merely an extreme way of misrepresenting facts. A bit like a certain president claiming not to have had sex with a certain woman.
Before you show how stupid you are, perhaps you should read LKML.
Directly from Linus:
Whining about Tivo’s choices is just stupid.
And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then
tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/181
That makes Thom right and you wrong. Linus said that and has a very good point. Saying the gplv3 gives you more freedom yet it restricts usage is completely asinine.
>That makes Thom right and you wrong. Linus said that and has a very good point. Saying the gplv3 gives you more freedom yet it restricts usage is completely asinine.
Yeah!11! It’s a real tyranny up north here. I’m not even allowed the freedom to hold slaves or pillage! I can’t even yell fire in a crowded place.
(Everyone restricts freedom to a degree to protect the fundamentals, in this case freedoms 0-3)
Edited 2007-07-15 17:22
One of the problems with journalism is that it insists on assigning individuals to groups and associating them with a set of absolutist positions on that basis. The result is everybody accusing everybody else of being hypocrites when it turns out that their actual beliefs are far more nuanced than we have been told.
For example, both of your statements about the GPLv3 are wrong. You say that the GPLv3 “gives you more freedom.” Anyone who reads the FSF’s rationale documents would realize that this is not the goal of any version of the GPL. Instead, the goal is, roughly speaking, to protect certain freedoms by limiting others.
Then you say it restricts usage, which you can’t do with a copyright license. The part of the GPLv3 to which you are referring restricts restrictions on running modified works. It prevents distributors from restricting usage. Is a restriction on a restriction still a restriction? I don’t know, but it isn’t clearly an affront to freedom.
Those that call the FSF hypocrites on the grounds that they are limiting freedom don’t understand that freedom is not a natural result of the human condition. Left to our own devices, we sell ourselves into slavery. Freedom is a paradox. Those that want the world to be free (in any context) are idealists, and idealists are inherently hypocritical.
I believe that the ultimate challenge of humanity is to figure out how peace and freedom can triumph over war and tyranny. It’s a hard problem, and we’re currently dealing with the aftermath of a twisted, inexplicable, and disastrous attempt to “bring freedom to the world.” The solution must be a careful balance between absolute freedom and absolute authority.
I hope that humanity can draft a framework for the preservation of free software, because only then can we realistically proceed toward a world of free people. Software is a perfect place to start, because it is an economy of unlimited supply. If we cannot agree on how to be free in a microcosm of unlimited resources, how are we supposed to live free in a world of scarcity?
The first step is to reject absolutism and accept hypocrisy. Because we are all hypocrites, and freedom is an elusive shade of gray.
Edited 2007-07-15 19:09
The quote is totally taken out of context. If you spend a few minutes reading the thread, you’ll see that immediately.
Or just read a later posting in the same thread. It not only puts things in perspective, it’s also the best interpretation of the difference between v2 and v3 that I’ve ever seen
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
I don’t think that level of language is needed on OSNews
Thom didn’t post the article, he posted an excerpt from it and a link to it. InformationWeek is the actual source, a fact which is mentioned quite prominently in Thom’s post.
I really wish people would stop the whole “OSNews shouldn’t have posted a link to such-and-such article because I personally find it objectionable” schtick, it’s getting old. Posting a link to an article does not equate with endorsement of its content.
Yes, he did – not word for word, but he did (why not, it’s his personal opinion). To him it’s clear that Linux will stay under GPL 2. Well, that may be a bad sign for GPL 3 …
Groklaw also has an article about this misquotation.
I think that article should be linked with this too
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070713192403106
“Thom, do you post every last crap as long as it looks like a nice opportunity for a flamewar?”
In that case, Linus will be pleased.
He enjoys a good flamewar.
The OSNews article about his attack on Gnome garnered around 600 comments or something. It’d be pretty hard to beat that.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/12956/Torvalds-Use-KDE
edit: link, and it was Gnome- not KDE[i]
[i]Edited 2007-07-15 16:31
Reading Linus’s post, I don’t see quite what the article is getting at. He did argue for the rights of the enduser, unusual from someone at his level of power, but he hardly ‘slammed executives of the Free Software Foundation.’
Of course, we can tell what side the author is trying to promote by looking at the last sentence of his first paragraph. He titled the two sides “business-minded developers” and “free software purists.” The name he gives the former completely ignores the fact that that position isn’t doing it for the sake of a business. The name he gives the latter — using the words ‘free’ and ‘purist’ — implies that that position is the ‘good’ and ‘pure’ position in the argument.
EDIT: Clarity.
Edited 2007-07-15 16:32
I agree with your perspective that the author is biased, but I think you have the favored sides flipped. A “purist” is usually looked down upon, in my parlance, whereas a business-minded person is more practical and productive.
Whatever… I personally like Linus’ point of view better because it seems more intellectually honest and it’s ultimately what will get Linux farther as an engineering system. TiVO could just as easily move to WinCE and get all the benefits of Linux if the cost of dealing with the GPLv3 is too high. WinCE is an shared-source OS for those people who choose to license it, so it’s not like they’ll lose much from an engineering perspective… maybe a buck or so per unit for price, but that could be less than the cost of litigating with these jackasses.
“I agree with your perspective that the author is biased, but I think you have the favored sides flipped. A “purist” is usually looked down upon, in my parlance, whereas a business-minded person is more practical and productive.
Whatever… I personally like Linus’ point of view better because it seems more intellectually honest and it’s ultimately what will get Linux farther as an engineering system. TiVO could just as easily move to WinCE and get all the benefits of Linux if the cost of dealing with the GPLv3 is too high. WinCE is an shared-source OS for those people who choose to license it, so it’s not like they’ll lose much from an engineering perspective… maybe a buck or so per unit for price, but that could be less than the cost of litigating with these jackasses.”
Its always nice to see Vista Advocates pop by in in GPL3 thread to promote Linus’ argument against GNU adoption.
I’m pretty certain, that its Microsoft not FSF threatening companies using Linux. Which the FSF unlike Linus is actually addressing.
I’d love you to show me these *costs*
The post is from 20th of June, why bring it up *now*?
Also he didn’t say “damn you gpl3 purists you are hypocrites and full of shit” but the article puts it this way.
Sorry I didn’t buy it. I give a tongue in the cheek to this article.
Hey guys, let’s make an exception to the general rule around here and *refuse* to turn this into an ugly flamewar.
Consider that one thing that most of us can probably agree upon is that the article was sheer crap no matter *how* one stands on the relative merits, or not, of GPLv3.
So instead of trashing Linus, the FSF, and each other, why don’t we all trash Paul McDougall. He’s the one who is deserving of it.
I suspect that it would be a waste of time and effort to email him directly. So I would reccommend a polite and well considered note to Information Week regarding the quality of the article:
http://www.informationweek.com/contactus.jhtml
Edited 2007-07-15 16:50
Sadly, the voice of reason/moderation doesn’t seem to carry much weight around here.
“””
Sadly, the voice of reason/moderation doesn’t seem to carry much weight around here.
“””
Well, one must count one’s blessings where one can. My second comment in this thread, which could have turned into a nasty flamewar, has gotten some very reasonable responses. And for that I thank the responders…
except
maybe
cyclops. 😉
@sbergman27 WOW thank you for mentioning me personally. I don’t want to this, because I’ve done it to death.
I find what you said offensive. I respect the work of the FSF, both for their political contribution and their code, and even Vista users should thank then for offering a tiny bit of competition.
It might become as a bit of a shock to you but Linus has wrote, and been involved in very little userland, and the majority of what makes up GNU is userland. We are seeing GNU/Solaris;GNU/*BSD and GNU/Linux.
I am increasingly loosing respect for Linus, and have *zero* respect for Linus the “Politician”, I actually find it appalling that he spends his time attacking the FSF and the Gnome project, when GNU has real problems ignoring the little things like adoption; patents; that company with 90%+ Market share; DRM. He spends his time attacking a License he is not going to use, and a Desktop he Doesn’t, Why would I care when he opens his Mouth?
My concern is and I think it shows strongest with his objections to users, like myself who want the four freedoms on out GNU devices. It shows his interest in Linux adoption…in embedded devices, but not Desktop Adoption of an OS thats attractive *because* of those four freedoms.
I use the word GNU for what I use. Its actually a shame, because the two applications that have made the Desktop OS a use a leading OS OpenOffice and Firefox, neither by the FSF.
The OS I use represents those “four freedoms”, because thats how I think of GNU, not something unchangeable on a mobile phone protected by Microsoft Patents.
BTW those are paragraphs.
uh oh, its you again. I spent hours reading you earlier today.
Don’t get me wrong, you’ve some really good points but your CONSTANT ranting about everyone and everything diffuses your point.
@spanglywires
If I have *one* rant here, and you can except it as a rant. I use the term GNU, which is contentious, because of the silly instance of GNU/Linux by Dick becuase the man *thought* he was bigger than the license he wrote. Look at the Free/Open-source landscape today, one of my arguments for GNU is Linux is although a excellent project is just one of thousands.
People get dragged into this silly Linus infight against FSF and I think it hurts *my* platform, and I resent Linus for this.
People used to comment of the meeting between Dick and Stallman and Dick ranting about GNU while Linus played with his children…How times have changed.
Linus once once described why tux was chosen for the mascot
Quote:
“Don’t take the penguin too seriously. It’s supposed to be kind of goofy and fun, that’s the whole point. Linux is supposed to be goofy and fun (it’s also the best operating system out there, but it’s goofy and fun at the same time!).”
Ref: http://www.sjbaker.org/tux/
I don’t think a device that you cannot run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software…fun and goofy.
Linus has changed the free software/open-source software landscape has changed…and not always for the better. In fact the only thing that doesn’t is Dick.
Nice point! I accept your rant
I think these are the growing pains, the teenage years to keep grinding the metaphors.
Hopefully all these ugly ducklings will turn into swans. Except (Open)Solaris, lets hope the venerable cart horse turns into the A-team van with the input from the community.
“””
@sbergman27 WOW thank you for mentioning me personally.
“””
I sincerely hope that you took it as a good natured joke. I do like to spread my posts out vertically, a bit. But not *that* much. ( OK. Maybe a little, sometimes. 😉 ) Are they formatting differently for you than what I see, I wonder? You are the only one who ever complains, anyway.
Could you bit a little more specific about what I said that was offensive to you? My joke was about our respective opinions on proper paragraph length, and not about GNU. And I apologize if it came off that way.
As to the paragraphs… as with most of what we discuss, the truth is probably somewhere in between. 😉
Edited 2007-07-15 22:22
I am increasingly loosing respect for Linus, and have *zero* respect for Linus the “Politician”
I’m not sure that is a wise position for an FSF supporter to take. Linus was (and is) a key player in bringing free software up to the level of credibility that it enjoys today. Without him, free software might still be languishing in its own niche community rather than standing among the big players at the forefront of IT.
Not that I would assert that Linus is solely responsible for the success of the free software movement; only that the Linux kernel is its keystone.
I actually find it appalling that he spends his time attacking the FSF and the Gnome project, when GNU has real problems ignoring the little things like adoption; patents; that company with 90%+ Market share; DRM. He spends his time attacking a License he is not going to use, and a Desktop he Doesn’t, Why would I care when he opens his Mouth?
I don’t follow lkml very closely although I do tend to follow FOSS news as much as possible. In any case, I don’t recall seeing Linus ever take the offensive against the FSF or the GPL3. It seems to me like he usually only offers his opinion when it is solicited or in his own defense when he is attacked for not preferring the GPL3 for the kernel.
@cb_osn The point that you’ve quoted. Is exactly the point I was trying to make. BTW I’m not a FSF supporter, I’m pro-technology, and the freedoms offered by the copyleft license regardless of them being political offer the best opportunity for advancement beyond the evolutionary dead-end that Microsoft created.
I have a great deal or respect for what he as done in the kernel, and more respect for him for organizing others, Many projects could benefit from his expertise. See my earlier comments on this thread. I object to Linus the “Politician”.
If a battle is won against the FSF over the war of the desktop with Microsoft I am not interested. I don’t care what he thinks of what is the spirit(sic) of GPL, the fact that he is not talking about GPL3 in *private* shows he is incapable of doing nothing but damage to the Desktop. Yet Novell and Microsoft can shake hands in corridors and nobody hears anything till the inks dried.
The other thing is I don’t think the Linux kernel is the keystone. I think its the GPL License. I actually think we now have a choice of kernels for GNU.
“I don’t recall seeing Linus ever take the offensive against the FSF or the GPL3”
Ignoring the fact that you must have *never* seem Linus in full flame, seriously Linus took the first shot at GPL3 becuase the FSF ignored him…and they should have kept ignoring him.
“””
BTW I’m not a FSF supporter, I’m pro-technology, and the freedoms offered by the copyleft license regardless of them being political offer the best opportunity for advancement beyond…
“””
If you care to, please expand upon this particular topic. I’m interested in what you have to say about it.
Heh, and it looks like both of our points have been substantiated
What’s wrong with a flamewar ? There are other sites which are more up to date with IT news, like Techweb, Earthweb or IDG.net. OS News is unique because one can flame there.
this whole GPL3 crap is just an open source soap opera.
“join us next year for te exciting conlsution.”
“GPL4, The last crusade.”
where as by that time the licence will be modified to allow yout o invade other developers in an attempt to convert them and if that fais destroy there civilization…
i heard they did something like that in europe in hte middle ages…..never finished that chapter in the history book but i bet it ended well… (sarcasm laid on thicker tha frosting on a fat kids cup cake)
“where as by that time the licence will be modified to allow yout o invade other developers in an attempt to convert them and if that fais destroy there civilization…”
I think I’ve played that Age of Empires mod.
“never finished that chapter in the history book”
Seeing that you regard the Free Software movement as some kind of religion, perhaps it was a fairytale you were reading, not a history book. Either way, more reading is probably required on your part.
> To call people who draw the line in a different place than you
> hypocrites is BS.
That was *not* what I did.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice,
it’s just not *mine*.
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
make my own choice.
See? THAT is hypocritical.
———————————–
So no, I don’t agree with what the InformationWeek article. And no, I don’t agree with Mr. Torvalds who seems to believe kleptocrats deserve freedom to take away freedom. You’d be hard pressed to find someone in even Anarchism that believes in _TOTAL_ freedom.
making clear, what he meant:
> To call people who draw the line in a different place than you
> hypocrites is BS.
That was *not* what I did.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice,
it’s just not *mine*.
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
make my own choice.
See? THAT is hypocritical.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
So Thom, do you still want to argue that he called the GPL3 authors “hypocritical morons”?
It’s just another case of Linus misrepresenting the Free Software people for fun and flames. GPLv3 is all about end-user freedom, and the FSF has *always* been about this. Linus wants corporations to have freedoms at the expense of end-users [*]. If he wants people (other than the fanboys) to take him seriously on more than a technical level, perhaps he can take the first step by not being so dishonest about people he doesn’t agree with.
[*] And yes, we know that you can get the Tivo sources and run them on something other than a Tivo, but what if all hardware vendors did this kind of thing? You wouldn’t have any right to run any modified software on anything. Either Linus doesn’t wish to see the big picture, or perhaps the vendors make an exception and let him play with their gadgets.
Corporations are users as well.
Your argument is simplistic to the point of being useless. If all hardware vendors made it impossible to run software on their hardware, then the whole debate would be over because no one would be able to run GPLv3 software on any hardware. The only way to prevent that happening is to also make some truly open hardware.
As long as the majority of software users are using Windows, then hardware vendors and Microsoft have power, and no amount of creative license writing can change that.
so he says tivo should be allowed to do what they want, and users should decide if they want to buy or not?! so why gplv2?! sounds more like he suddenly wants a bsd licensed kernel..
im afraid torvalds is a fool, who doesent give a damn about freedom to the recievers of the software..
“””sounds more like he suddenly wants a bsd licensed kernel..
im afraid torvalds is a fool, who doesent give a damn about freedom to the recievers of the software..
“””
I hate to get involved in this but…
No. As you point out, he did pick, and continues to like GPLv2. If he did not care about freedoms he would not have used that license, and would not be defending it today.
Also, he has been very explicit about why he would not use BSD.
And, BTW, he tends to use the word “fairness” rather than freedom. Honestly, I don’t really blame him.
I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD.
With a finished HURD, they would not have to *care* about people prepending “GNU/” to the name of their OSes.
They would not have to waste *everyone’s* time and energy, including their own, trying to tell the copyright holders of *other projects* how they should license their own code.
In other words, they could mind their own business and still have GNU OS. And people could choose whether to use it… or not.
It would MAKE SO MUCH SENSE all around.
Why are they not doing that? HURD predates Linux by a year, IIRC. If they had put half the effort into finishing GNU OS as they do trying to butt into other people’s business, this whole issue would be quite moot, today.
Edited 2007-07-15 18:12
sbergman27 wrote:
–“I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD.”
lack of resources and lack of interest from external developers comes to mind. which is the problem for just about every alternative os out there.
sbergman27 wrote:
–If they had put half the effort into finishing GNU OS as they do trying to butt into other people’s business, this whole issue would be quite moot, today.
again, their resources aren’t infinite, compared to microsoft, apple or even many commercial software vendors their resources are abysmal.
practically the entire oss world relies on their gnu toolchain, which IS their flagship. I’d much rather have they continue their focus there, improving on their great development tools which supports a LARGE range of hardware targets rather than putting those efforts in finishing off the HURD.
>I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD.
It’s quite simple: Because it isn’t the ultimate goal of the FSF to build their own OS (== 100% FSF copyrighted). The goal is to have a complete free OS. Therefore the FSF develops everything what is missed but doesn’t reinvent the wheel by writing a new kernel when we already have one, writing a new X system when we already have one, etc..
The FSF is completely fine with Linux, x,org,.. even if they use another license than GPLv3. The FSF would even have been fine with FreeBSD if it would have been exist at the beginning of GNU.
EDIT: fixing typo
Edited 2007-07-15 18:37
“””
Because it isn’t the ultimate goal of the FSF to build their own OS (== 100% FSF copyrighted).
“””
I would disagree on this point. In my view, the FSF’s conflicts with the Linux kernel developers is not really about GPLv2 vs GPLv3. That is just a symptom.
In my view, the conflict really comes down to who controls the copyright.
While writing my post above, (which should be taken as a constructive suggestion to the FSF and not as an attack, BTW), I briefly considered their adopting the excellent Solaris kernel, assuming it goes GPLv3. It would have the right license for them. And it would certainly be convenient. But Sun owning a complete copyright on it would never be acceptible to them.
IMO, the FSF, rightly or wrongly, really *does* want that level of control. If it were not GPLvX vs GPLvX+1, something else would come up that would trouble them about any kernel which they do not control the copyrights to.
Now, *from my perspective*, I agree that it *would* be a waste of resources.
But I am trying to look at it from the perspective of the FSF finally getting what it really wants, and has been working toward all these years.
And I really do not see anything short of having their own kernel getting that for them, regardless of the resources it would require.
Edited 2007-07-15 19:06
>I would disagree on this point. In my view, the FSF’s conflicts with the Linux kernel developers is not really about GPLv2 vs GPLv3. That is just a symptom.
In my view, the conflict really comes down to who controls the copyright.
I don’t challenge your view. But your view isn’t necessarily the view of the FSF. There are a lot of interviews out their where RMS said exactly what i have written. He also said that they are fine with Linux and because we have a great kernel the Hurd has a low priority in the FSF and they focus on things which are really needed (that was e.g. free flash (Gnash) and free Java (GNU Classpath)).
That doesn’t mean that the FSF has the same opinion in every case like the Kernel Hackers. The FSF even hasn’t the same opionion like all maintainer/developer of GNU packages. But that’s not the point. The point is that the technical goal of the FSF is to have a free OS and they are using what ever exist and lead us toward this goal.
RMS also mentioned in some GPLv3 talks that there is no problem if Linux will keep GPLv2. Sure, he would prefer GPLv3 but he has no problem with a decision to stay with GPLv2.
Edited 2007-07-15 19:12
One thing that gets *really* confusing in these discussions is the fact that no community is of a piece. People within any community have differing views.
Richard is actually more reasonable, diplomatic, and clear thinking than some of his supporters. Though, frankly, I don’t think that anyone, even Richard, can best Eben Moglen on those qualities. (Hint to FSF advocates: Read and emulate Eben Moglen.)
I still think that the FSF would be happier with a kernel of their own. But that is my opinion, and I would certainly not try to force it on them. 😉
@sbergman27
I would disagree on this point. In my view, the FSF’s conflicts with the Linux kernel developers is not really about GPLv2 vs GPLv3. That is just a symptom.
I’m a little disturbed by the fact that you *separate* the two, when kernel developers *have* shown an interest in GPL3.
I actually *love* the control argument, and have to ask the basic question. What are you on about? As Linus *repeated points out the FSF have wrote little to nothing in the kernel, and nothing in the Solaris kernel. Not even Linus’ is losing sleep over this, he is over losing Developers to Solaris for its more attractive lisensing which is what I think this is about. But seriously thats just silly.
“””
he is over losing Developers to Solaris for its more attractive lisensing which is what I think this is about.
“””
How is CDDL licensing with a mandatory joint copyright agreement with Sun Microsystems for all code included in mainline “more attractive” than GPLv2?
Even thowing in the possibility of dual licensing with GPLv3, still with the mandatory copyright agreement for mainline-included code, I don’t see how many Linux kernel developers could find that more attractive.
A better argument might be made for Solaris being more interesting to work on for technical reasons, or something like that. But losing devs over licensing? I seriously doubt it.
BTW, what I’m “on about” as you put it, is suggesting a way for FSF to gain more control over their GNU OS. It hinges on my feeling that they essentially do really want copyright control. And if that assumption is incorrect, in your view, then my suggestion doesn’t really affect you.
“How is CDDL licensing with a mandatory joint copyright agreement with Sun Microsystems for all code included in mainline “more attractive” than GPLv2? ”
Could you show me where any of these things has happened?
“BTW, what I’m “on about” as you put it, is suggesting a way for FSF to gain more control over their GNU OS. It hinges on my feeling that they essentially do really want copyright control. And if that assumption is incorrect, in your view, then my suggestion doesn’t really affect you”
So are they going to hold at gunpoint all the developers that have added *their* code under *their* license to the kernel which *they* still have copyright to.
Now if you say that this is part of Linus’ keeping kernel developers in line over GPL2. I agree, but control…the only way in which this could be archived in Linux is mass revolt with the kernel developers twinned with them signing over their copyrights over to the FSF. I suspect thats a little far fetched. Although with each posting by Linus that becomes an increasing possibility, but hey will be driven there by Linus.
“””
Could you show me where any of these things has happened?
“””
Well, the CDDL licensing is common knowledge, and the joint copyright info is an easy google.
But here is a link:
http://opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
From that page:
“… the OpenSolaris project requires contributors to jointly assign their copyright on contributed code. The Sun Contributor Agreement (SCA) gives Sun and the contributor joint copyright interests in the code… ”
And so Sun can (and does) take the whole thing, along with all contributions from other parties, and do proprietary things, or whatever they want, with it. You, as a contributor can’t, though.
You didn’t know that? Do you still think that its licensing is more attractive to Linux kernel developers?
Edited 2007-07-15 21:23
“… the OpenSolaris project requires contributors to jointly assign their copyright on contributed code. The Sun Contributor Agreement (SCA) gives Sun and the contributor joint copyright interests in the code… ”
Show me the GPL3
Show me the New license, because I suspect they have not written it yet.
They are interested with Linux’s Developers and drivers, under the *current* license thats not going to happen. In fact *thats* the point.
Its actually interesting to speculate, but clearly its you who control(sic) this choice. I’m more interested in what Jonathan Schwartz has to say.
Quote:
“we love where the FSF’s GPL3 is headed.”
Ref:http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
aww bless him.
Nothing is written in stone, you can only speculate.
Edited 2007-07-15 21:47
“””
Show me the GPL3
Show me the New license.
“””
Could you clarify what you are asking me for? So far as I know, no version of Solaris is licensed under GPLv3 presently, though there has been talk about it, and I expect it to happen. (Hence my my use of the phrase “possibility of”.)
Are you saying that you think that GPLv3 will change Sun’s requirement for the joint assignment of copyrights? I can’t imagine it doing so. Have they indicated, somewhere, that it would change?
There is nothing (so far as I know) in the CDDL *license* that requires the joint copyright assignment. It is a Sun policy on the acceptance of code. And there is nothing in the GPLv3, so far as I know, which can forbid them from continuing that policy.
There has been no discussion that I am aware of suggesting that the joint copyright requirement will be withdrawn.
Edited 2007-07-15 22:10
“Could you clarify what you are asking me for? So far as I know, no version of Solaris is licensed under GPLv3 presently, though there has been talk about it, and I expect it to happen. (Hence my my use of the phrase “possibility of”.)”
So you knew I was talking about an as yet unspecified license and then, posted a sarky post back with a link to the current license. When you can only speculate. In fact it looks like you should give me some mod points. I’ll ask why the subterfuge, unless your arguing for the point of arguing.
Even Linus thinks that Solaris is wanting Linux’s developers/drivers, and yet you don’t. Perhaps you need to look at there dinner dates a little closer.
Ask yourself will Solaris get these without being more open than Linux, but your right in the end it could be PR exercise. Although I suspect if this is the case Hurd could benefit and I never thought I would say that, although like *you* say the FSF wouldn’t have the copyright, but its worth considering.
…but your playing smackdown
“””
So you knew I was talking about an as yet unspecified license and then, posted a sarky post back with a link to the current license.
“””
No. I haven’t been sure at all about what you are getting at. I took my best guess.
So let’s make sure we are on the same page. Because I think that there is something fundamental that we are miscommunicating over.
The license is a completely different thing than Sun’s policy regarding the acceptance of code into mainline.
You keep talking about a new license. And I do expect that they will add dual licensing under GPLv3 to OpenSolaris. In fact, while I *can* only speculate, I’m pretty much taking that as a given at this point.
What I do not expect to change… and what I see no reason whatsoever to *think* might change, is Sun’s policy with regard to the acceptance of code into the official version.
Honestly, cyclops, I am not trying to be devious.
Of *course* Sun wants developers, from wherever they can get them. And former Linux devs would be just fine and dandy. No disagreement, there.
I’m skeptical that they will get many. But, on the other hand, I am not exactly *opposed* to Linux developers moving to Solaris if they do decide they prefer to develop for it. I’m a *big* Linux fan. But I’m also a big Unix fan. And I’m also a fan of talented people deciding what they want to do with their talents and acting upon those desires. I’d actually kind of prefer that it be in the service of Linux. But if it is for Solaris, that’s cool with me, too.
Edited 2007-07-15 22:42
I could only *ever* be talking about the new license. I currently my *only* interest in Solaris is a better GNU, and by better GNU I mean a an OS that, supports the four freedoms.
Ignoring your waffle. The bottom line is a kernel which promotes GNU. If you don’t know what I mean have a little think next time you update your linksys router.
“””
I currently my *only* interest in Solaris is a better GNU, and by better GNU I mean a an OS that, supports the four freedoms.
“””
Well… then the best of luck to you, I guess. 🙂
Edited 2007-07-15 23:20
Drifting off-topic, but…
The FSF requires such copyright assignment for accepting code on projects falling directly under the GNU umbrella[1], yet it doesn’t seem to hinder their adoption…
Well, you could argue that most programs that really matter to end users aren’t under their control. Still, there are hundred of people submitting patches for GNU packages for making them better (just take a look at GCC).
I’m not sure that copyright assignment is the reason for the slow adoption of OpenSolaris by developers. Being late in the game has probably more to do than anything else…
[1]: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright
@sbergman27 is there something wrong with you return key.
you
keep
posting
like
this
I personally don’t prefix anything. I use GNU. Its catchy sound like “new” which describes the always fresh OS , GNU is.
Probably because writing kernels isn’t a trivial matter like some people pretend, especially when dealing with microkernels. People making comments like “it’s just a kernel” clearly don’t understand its importance in a complete OS, just as they don’t understand that programming hardware is different from programming over software.
Furthermore, Linux was pretty much a “toy kernel” until commercial interests came around. These interests brought many competent engineers and innovative technologies that greatly improved the kernel, making it a real challenger in the OS market (coupled with the GNU userland, mind you).
While the FSF isn’t incompatible with commercial interests, they are still having two diverging philosophies. Even if the FSF had completed the kernel, they would probably have an hard time to get significant support for moving it from the “toy” market.
Given that, and the fact that Linux is already libre, I guess they just prefer to focus their efforts on other parts. Even with Linux, it’s still a perfectly libre OS.
“I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD.”
Some of their architectural choices have bound their hands, it seems. It’s not that they don’t want and actively try to.
it is not easy to write a a complete OS. GNU was going nowhere until Linux came along, and even then, only took off when companies started to use it, and to employ people to develop it further.
No, it is not architectural issues that have bound their hands, it’s plain old unavailability of resources. They have too many people who talk the talk, rather than walking the walk.
This is a very peculiar viewpoint.
There are several kernels that GNU tools can work with.
Linux,
http://distrowatch.com/
Solaris,
http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki
GNU Hurd
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
and
GNU/BSD
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/
There is a lot of GNU-without-Linux out there, and working, but I can’t see any Linux-without-GNU working at all!
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
Edited 2007-07-17 10:03
No. As you point out, he did pick, and continues to like GPLv2. If he did not care about freedoms he would not have used that license, and would not be defending it today.
Merely choosing the GPLv2 and defending it does not prove a belief in the freedoms it is intended to promote. There is no such logical implication. I might choose it because it’s popular, or for a quid pro quo, etc. Indeed, Torvalds has repeatedly done more than merely state his reason–fairness, he has also actively distanced himself from the four freedoms associated with the GPL. That hardly shows a care for these freedoms.
And, BTW, he tends to use the word “fairness” rather than freedom. Honestly, I don’t really blame him.
In the context of the GPL, he makes the more conservative and easier choice of “fairness” over “freedom”. Relatively conservative and easy choices are not inherently optimal.
I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD.
Why should it when there are already free kernels? For decades the FSF has advocated new development to focus on functions for which no free software is available. The GNU OS has already been completed. E.g., with Debian one can use GNU with a choice of the Linux, FreeBSD, or Hurd kernels. Further software will always be needed but in other categories. People are continuing to work on various aspects of the Hurd but out of their own interests and not from any priority of the FSF.
Indeed, the FSF long ago shifted its emphasis from software development to explicit promotion of the freedoms underlying free software. I think the shift is good since there will be increasing temptation to erode these freedoms as free software becomes more popular. E.g., without this shift, I suppose the GPLv3 would have been released later or would have been less effective at protecting the freedoms.
The biggest error that people (not saying you) make in complaints about “GNU/Linux” is to believe that “GNU” here stands only for the GNU software products as “Linux” stands for a kernel. This belief is illogical. “GNU” is the name of a project that has important associations not only with certain free software products but also with the very origin and philosophy of the free software movement.
I could be wrong, but I believe the main purpose of the name “GNU/Linux” is not just to name a few central software components of certain free software distributions but also to remind people of historical and philosophical roots of the software.
People can try to condemn the name “GNU/Linux” as sins of envy and pride all the want, but the rationale I have given is perfectly understandable and independent of envy and pride.
For anyone wanting more on the use of this name, a starting point is:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
Edited 2007-07-15 19:34
Tivo released every bit of source code they where required to release under the GPL, exactly like Linus intended. They certainly cannot do what they want. Had they violated the license I have no doubt Linus would be first in line to call them on it.
Where exactly do you get the idea that Linus wants a BSD license? He’s always been a strong proponent of the GPLv2 and explained several times why he prefers it to a BSD license. If you personally don’t agree with the terms and conditions of the GPLv2 then that’s cool and you don’t submit your code under that license.
because he follows the “if you dont like tivo, dont buy it!” and since what tivo does is against freedom of the user, what he essentially says is: “so, tivo uses our supposedly “free” code, but dont give you all the freedoms, BUT, who the f–k gives a damn? dont like their shit?, dont buy it!”
Tivo used ‘our’ code under full compliance with the license Linus chose for his project, and gave us everything ‘we’ asked for in the license. Linus read and understood the license before choosing it for his project and thus has no problem when people follow the license.
Linus primarily wants people to return the changes they make to the kernel, BSD doesn’t require this, the GPL does, and that is why he isn’t using BSD for his kernel. Linus has stated many many times why he prefers the GPL over the BSD license, so to say otherwise is pure ignorance.
And really if you don’t like Tivo and think what they did was unethical and/or immoral then don’t give them your money. What is wrong with that stance? There are lots of companies I don’t give my money to, not because what they do is illegal, but because I disagree with them.
Stallman is a fanatic and he is doing more harm to OSS now.
Hitler alwasys thought that Germany will be proud of him one day for what he is doing.
Stallman has taken his own views to extreme. Tomorrow he may design GPLv4 to force equal pricing in US and Europe for hardware or may be free hardware:)
For me:
BSD Forever, GPL Never.
Edited 2007-07-15 18:00
Misleading InformationWeek GPLv3 article
Posted by mark 13 hours ago
LINUS CALLS GPLv3 “A FINE CHOICE” – is a title that InformationWeek could have used for their article. It would have been very selective quoting, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem for InformationWeek.
Nor does pretending that old emails are new emails, or misrepresenting people.
In reality, there is no news. Their article contains nothing at all that is new since GPLv3’s June 29th release. I thought this clarification was worthwhile because Slashdot has now featured that article, and from looking at the comments, it seems that most readers have been fooled into thinking this is some new statement from Linus.
NEWS? OLDS?
The article starts with “Free Software Foundation last month published a revised version of the General Public License” – framing the article as post-GPLv3 news. It then proceeds to present quotes from Linus, without mentioning that they’re from a June 20th email – that’s not just old, it’s from before GPLv3 was even published.
At the very end of the article, the June 20th date is mentioned in relation to one quote – but only that one quote. It’s not mentioned that the whole story has just been a creative rehash of that one old email.
MISREPRESENTATION
Of course, InformationWeek don’t give readers a link to Linus’s actual email. Besides being able to see that date that the quotes were taken from, readers could have seen that Linus’s “fanatics and totalitarian states” comment was part of a general comment in a meandering discussion. It was not, contrary to the introduction of InformationWeek’s article, part of a description of the “executives of Free Software Foundation … mind-set”.
SELECTIVE
I wonder how long it took them to decide not to quote this bit of the email: “I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice, it’s just not *mine*.” If they have some objection to publishing balanced statements, they could have just left out the last four words.
CONCLUSION
We’ve see some real low quality journalism during the GPLv3 drafting process. Dan Lyons’s stories in Forbes (which Slashdot also featured) defined the low point. The author of this InformationWeek article, Paul McDougall, hasn’t managed to stoop down to Lyons’s level, but he gets my nomination for 2nd place.
Linus’s position is clear. He’s repeatedly said that he’d use GPLv3 in certain situations if there was a practical advantage, but he prefers v2 over v3. That’s fine. I prefer v3, but v2 is still a great licence.
In related news, I just checked Groklaw and saw that PJ’s latest story is about a different InformationWeek story which she finds misleading, on the topic of SCO, patents, and yet another claim about the end of free software.
Ciarán O’Riordan,
Support free software: Join FSFE’s Fellowship
(C) Ciarán O’Riordan
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved and appropriate attribution information (author, original site, original URL) is included
http://www.fsdaily.com/Opposition/Misleading_InformationWeek_GPLv3_…
Love a bit of ranting from Linus. I can’t help feeling that apart from Linus being perhaps the worst political figurehead for anything. How much people should focus on their skill set. The links aren’t very clear are these the same stuff linked to over a month ago, or did someone let him out of his box again?
I only mention this because of the Gnome stuff, I don’t actually mean his coding. Nobody can deny his work in the kernel, but his organization skills. I have to say the user space could do with a little of that.
Every reporter wants to be a journalist.
LKML BEGINNING :
“On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Neuer wrote:
> >
> > And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then
> > tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.
>
> One might say the same thing about someone who claims not to have a
> moral right to force certain choices on others in some circumstances
> (e.g. when those others have used copyrighted work in a product and
> ought to understand that for some not insignificant portion of the
> copyright holders, the terms implicitly included preserving certain
> “freedoms” for downstream recipients) while reserving a very similar
> moral right with others (e.g. potential murderers, theives,
> tresspassers, distributors of proprietary derived works).
I don’t disagree that “morals” are something very personal, and you can
thus never really argue on morals *except*for*your*own*behaviour*.
So I claim that for *me* the right choice is GPLv2 (or something similar).
I think the GPLv3 is overreaching.
There’s a very fundamental, and very basic rule that is often a good
guideline. It’s “Do unto others”.
So the reason I *personally* like the GPLv2 is that it does unto others
exactly what I wish they would do unto me.
It allows everybody do make that choice that I consider to be really
important: the choice of how something _you_ designed gets used.
And it does that exactly by *limiting* the license to only that one work.
Not trying to extend it past the work.
See?
The GPLv3 can never do that. Quite fundamentally, whenever you extend the
“reach” of a license past just the derived work, you will *always* get
into a situation where people who designed two different things get into a
conflict when they meet. The GPLv2 simply avoids the conflict entirely,
and has no problem at all with the “Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you”.
In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally
would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their
ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I’m their
legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about “legality”, this
is about “morality”. The GPLv3 doesn’t match what I think is morally where
I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it
myself.
So your arguments about “potential murderes”, “thieves”, “trespassers” and
“distributors of proprietary derived works” is totally missing the point.
It’s missing the point that “morals” are about _personal_ choices. You
cannot force others to a certain moral standpoint.
Laws (like copyright law) and legal issues, on the other hand, are
fundamentally *not* about “personal” things, they are about interactions
that are *not* personal. So laws need to be fundamnetally different from
morals. A law has to take into account that different people have
different moral background, and a law has to be _pragmatic_.
So trying to mix up a moral argument with a legal one is a fundamental
mistake. They have two totally different and separate areas.
The GPLv2 is a *legal* license. It’s not a “moral license” or a “spiritual
guide”. Its raison-d’etre is that pragmatic area where different peoples
different moral rules meet.
In contrast, a persons *choice* to use the GPLv2 is his private choice.
Totally different. My choice of the GPLv2 doesn’t say anything about my
choice of laws or legal issues.
You don’t have to agree with it – but exactly because it’s his private
choice, it’s a place where the persons moral rules matter, in a way that
they do *not* matter in legal issues.
So killing, thieving, and distributing proprietary derived works are about
*legal* choices. Are they also “immoral”? Who knows. Sometimes killing is
moral. Sometimes thievery can me moral. Sometimes distributing derived
works can be moral. Morality != legality. They are two totally different
things.
Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate “morality” with
“legality”. There’s tons of examples of that from human history. The ruler
is not just a king, he’s a God, so disagreeing with him is immoral, but
it’s also illegal, and you can get your head cut off.
In fact, a lot of our most well-known heroes are the ones that actually
saw the difference between morals and laws.
A German soldier who refused to follow orders was clearly the more “moral”
one, wouldn’t you say? Never mind law. Gandhi is famous for his peaceful
civil disobedience – was that “immoral” or “illegal”?
Or Robin Hood. A romantic tale, but one where the big fundamnetal part of
the picture is the _difference_ between morality and legality.
Think about it.
Yes, there is obviously overlap, in that a lot of laws are there to
protect things that people also consider “moral”. But the fact that there
is correlation should *not* cause anybody to think that they are at all
about the same thing.
> To call people who draw the line in a different place than you
> hypocrites is BS.
That was *not* what I did.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice,
it’s just not *mine*.
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
make my own choice.
See? THAT is hypocritical.
Linus ”
LKML END
3 comments later than the linked in “article” one .
Because I think it is worth reading the whole comment & is a big part in understanding the pro/anti GPL3 flams .
GPLv3 is finished now, and NOW he is calling the authors hypocrites – had he tried to say a word while creating GPLv3?
First off, no he does not call the authors of the GPL3 hypocrites. That’s a lie. The article and Thom took his remarks totally out of context.
Second, Linus was very vocal about his critizisms during the drafting process of the GPL3.
Thom,
on your next article please first read the article you are about to link.
If you are not able to read the clear lines, don’t touch it. Save yourself from reading “between the lines”, something which you clearly fail to do.
Thank you
Linus and the FSF agree on more things than they disgree.
But sometimes freedom is mutually exclusive. Sometimes you have to take away freedom here to give freedom there.
So in my understanding of this, they both believe in the same amount of freedom. But in Linus’ and other (including my) opinions, the FSF is being unreasonable on the Tivo issue. They are extending the software license into controlling the hardware. By doing this they are granting the user a slight freedom, but taking away a maybe slightly larger freedom from hardware+etc developers.
This is why Linus implied that some FSF people are hypocritical morons, and why he was right to do so. IMHO you stop being a *FREEDOM* purist when you start assigning owners to the mutually exclusive freedoms, based on your own agenda.
I think the FSF is not a *FREEDOM* purist — it is a *SOFTWARE FREEDOM* purist. That leaves some other freedoms in the cold.
>They are extending the software license into controlling the hardware. By doing this they are granting the user a slight freedom, but taking away a maybe slightly larger freedom from hardware+etc developers.
Yes, they take away the freedom of “hardware+etc developers” to take away our freedom. Sure you can have the opinion that the freedom of the “hardware+etc developers” is more important than our freedom. But that was never the aim of FSF.
The aim of FSF was always to secure the freedom of all users and the “we are all in the same boat”-approach. So never mind how small the gain of users freedom is, if we can extend it (even if only slightly) we should do it.
Of course this only makes sense if you are also in favour of users freedom and if you also think that we should have control over the computers we are using.
Edited 2007-07-15 19:36
“””
Yes, they take away the freedom of “hardware+etc developers” to take away our freedom.
“””
No, not at all. Proprietary embedded OSes are very inexpensive. E.g. Linksys switched from Linux to VxWorks, dropped some flash and ram, which the switch allowed them to do, dropped the price $20 and came out ahead with the WRT54G wireless router.
Anyone who thinks that the low price of OSS gives us any leverage is dreaming. Using OSS, or not, is merely an implementation detail. And if OSS forbids them to do what they need to do, then it is simply not a candidate for that application. Companies are not going to change their whole business model over implementation trivialities.
The only difference is that by forcing them to use proprietary components, we lose any influence which we might have had regarding details which we might actually have persuaded them on.
>No, not at all. Proprietary embedded OSes are very inexpensive. E.g. Linksys switched from Linux to VxWorks, dropped some flash and ram, which the switch allowed them to do, dropped the price $20 and came out ahead with the WRT54G wireless router.
Anyone who thinks that the low price of OSS gives us any leverage is dreaming.
I can’t remember that i have ever talked about the price of Free Software… *confused*
Perhaps I misunderstood, then. Sorry.
I was taking the statement that I quoted to imply that GPLv3 would be effective in thwarting the ability of vendors to lock down their hardware.
What did you mean?
-Steve
And those WRT54G models are way less popular (mainly because they cut down on the hardware). But they can still be modified to run Linux. If they would have been tivoized, they couldn’t.
Off-topic might not be such a bad thing to be at this point. So I’ll respond. 😉
You are talking to a hard core, dyed in the wool, OpenWRT lover. ( http://www.openwrt.org ) I have a WRT54GL as my gateway and a WRTSL54GS as my fileserver. I have 7 WRT54GLs, also running OpenWRT, out in the field at client sites.
And I must say that it has been a *long* time since I have been so excited about hardware. I *strongly* recommend anyone who thinks they might be interested to spend $52-$62 U.S. at Newegg, Amazon, or wherever, and buy a WRT54GL. The WRTSL54GS has a usb port that can be used for… well… anything that you might want to use it for and you can probably get it off the shelf at your local brick and mortar. I like buying the WRT54GL, though, since it is a solid vote for Linux-based appliances.
You are correct that the later models, with only 2MB flash and 8MB or RAM can run Linux, what you get is *extremely* limited and not much fun at all.
So while I do think that the later WRT54G(S) models were a financial win for Linksys, I’m a *huge* fan of the more capable models, and hope to see more of them.
See, I don’t view the Tivo situation as taking away the user’s freedom. You are not losing freedom when you buy a device that lets you do more things than you could without it. Could that be called gaining freedom? Gaining the freedom to record TV shows?
That’s one way of thinking to consider. Another is this:
Whether Tivo used hardware hacks to stop software access, or put the software on a ROM so it couldn’t be changed, either way the important thing is that they put the software changes online as per the software license.
The hardware was theirs to do with as they pleased when they owned it. Now that you own it, the hardware is yours to do with as you please. And all the while, you can download the code for the GPL software. I’d call that fair and reasonable freedom for all.
>See, I don’t view the Tivo situation as taking away the user’s freedom. You are not losing freedom when you buy a device that lets you do more things than you could without it. Could that be called gaining freedom? Gaining the freedom to record TV shows?
You could have also write:
“See, I don’t view the non-free software situation as taking away the user’s freedom. You are not losing freedom when you buy a device that lets you do more things than you could without it. Could that be called gaining freedom? Gaining the freedom to play games, use the internet, write letters, use programs for your calculations,…?”
With your argument you could justify everything.
> either way the important thing is that they put the software changes online as per the software license.
That’s depend how you look at it. That’s not the viewpoint of users freedom and the “we are all in the same boat”-approach.
As i said before you may have another goal or view compared to the FSF. So for you obviously not everything makes sense what the FSF is doing. But i think you could at least understand it from their point of view even if you disagree.
The point of my root post was to expand upon what Linus said in his short statement. Unfortunately we’ve fallen into duplicating old kernel mailing list arguments.
I wasn’t making a rigorous logical argument there, so your wild reinterpretation is taking the point way out of context.
I’m just saying that some “freedoms” are mutually exclusive, and as such the FSF isn’t the bastion of all freedoms. And that, I think, is what Linus was saying.
Misreply!
Edited 2007-07-15 20:02 UTC
I personally think they’re not taking control of the hardware in GPLv3, since if we look at GPLv2, it could *possibly* be used to counter Tivoisation, in this section:
“The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.”
Tivo is just leaving off the few “bytes” that have the control keys to disable modified software. They’re just using software, too.
If one wants to get “trusted hardware”, like Linus wants to control his kids’ computers, that’s fine for him. But *I* want to be able to remove that. A rootkit in the hardware/software Tivoisation where I don’t have access but Intel does is wrong.
I did not submit this article for its journalistic quality. Honestly, the InformationWeek article reads like an op/ed column more than anything news’y. Frankly, that’s typical of them, and so is a complete disregard of grammar.
I did not submit this article for a flamewar to ensue, either, and I’m sure Thom didn’t accept my submission for the sake of starting a flamewar. I think he knows he’s at risk of losing OSNews readership if this site turns into a bucket of flames. But, likewise, he shouldn’t not report on controversial topics that stir people up out of a fear of flamewars.
I expected there to be disagreements, but I shouldn’t have held your flamish reactions past you.
I submitted this because it’s interesting–not the IW article itself, but what’s going on here and how others are interpreting it, however incorrect Paul McDougall’s adjectives for Linus may be. Paul’s melodramatic, black-and-white way of describing this fascinates me because he’s not the only one doing it: the general consensus is either Linus is completely pragmatic and business-minded while the FSF are fanatical and religious zealots, or Linus is betraying the FSF in the worst possible way while the FSF and GPLv3 are the cornerstone of moral and ethical coding. Believe it or not, both of these black-and-white ways of looking at things are completely wrong. Paul described things the exaggerated way he did for effect and simplicity, no doubt, but it’s actually the way a lot of people view this. This submission somewhat puts everything into perspective and shows how asinine and illogical it’s getting.
Also, as for Linus Torvalds effectively called the authors of the GPLv3 ‘hypocritical morons’, notice how I worded that: effectively. I am not saying he did outright call them that, but it’s obvious he impled it because, if you read a lot of the discussions about GPLv3, you’ll notice that Linus throws around variations of the word “hypocrite” like it’s the word “the”. It’s obvious that’s what he thinks of the FSF and the GPLv3.
And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.
If he wasn’t somehow applying that to the FSF or GPLv3 or its proponents, then why did he make that analogy? I mean, really.
“And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.”
If he wasn’t somehow applying that to the FSF or GPLv3 or its proponents, then why did he make that analogy? I mean, really.
As has already been explained here and as you would have known had you actually looked at the lkml discussion, he was saying this to the people who tried to coerce him into using the GPL3, as they were trying to take away his freedoms talking about freedoms.
He even said so himself:
> To call people who draw the line in a different place than you
> hypocrites is BS.
That was *not* what I did.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice,
it’s just not *mine*.
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
make my own choice.
See? THAT is hypocritical.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
“Linus is completely pragmatic and business-minded while the FSF are fanatical and religious zealots, or Linus is betraying the FSF in the worst possible way while the FSF and GPLv3 are the cornerstone of moral and ethical coding. Believe it or not, both of these black-and-white ways of looking at things are completely wrong.”
Much as I agree with the overall sentiment of what you are saying. I find the words somewhat grating as they twist two different sentiments together, and that doesn’t work. Linus used the words “pragmatic” in a very specific sense that it could be applied to, namely *binary blobs* in the kernel. This is nothing to do with *pragmatism* this is “political” your actually reinforcing the lie.
Its very likely that users of GNU enjoy software from both the FSF and Linux, and *should* have respect for the both. Linus’ anti-FSF has appealed to many Vista users on here, but increasingly we are seeing this view eroded by both his own developers who are more inline with the FSF *politics* like Alan Cox, and the appeal of GPL3 after the Novell deal, where Linus’ words are starting to look empty.
but the bottom line is….
Both Linus’ and the FSF are political.
pragmatism has *nothing* to do with this instance.
There blows the splinters of the ‘open source movement’…
Seriously, there’s more important stuff going on in the world. Famine, suffering, The Cheeky Girls…
Think of this whole thing as like the day the hippies woke up after the 60’s. The world wasn’t all peace and love and LSD, and today its not (nor ever has been) all caring and sharing.
So desperately trying not to sound like flamebait and in true Tony Blair benevolent Dictactor style, I propose the ‘Lego License’.
‘All code is bricks, anything you make from these bricks is your own to do with as you please. If you make your own bricks, please share them.’
All this license does is encourage not re-inventing the wheel. Someone should champion it.
edit: typo! doh!
Edited 2007-07-15 21:32
Linux doesn’t say anything about GPL3-authors being hypocrites, nor does he mention GPL v3.
WTF is this kind of “journalism”? :s
“WTF is this kind of “journalism”? :s”
The kind that sells, unfortunately.
I know, I know – but it takes me with surprise every time… *sigh*
If you buy a tivo you are still pretty much as “free” to do what you want with it. You can still mod it to use whatever software you want to disable the DRM etc. What GPL3 does is require tivo to tell you HOW to mod it as well as prevent it from having any meaningful DRM.
The end user isn’t much more “free” if at all under the gpl3 and tivo, just more informed about how to mod the device. I guess you could claim that forcing a lack of DRM makes them more-free but in reality they would end up with a device thats less useful then it was with gpl2 less content to watch as amazon unbox wouldn’t work with it anymore, and cable companies are not going to start broadcasting only unencrypted digital stations anytime soon (for the newer tivo v3 cable-card system)
As much as the GPL3 purports to enhance freedoms, it seems the effect will be cutting off the nose to spite the face.
In practical terms, the “anti-Tivoization” provisions of the GPL3, which create field of use restrictions, may backfire. Rather than comply with the license, it would be more reasonable to port to an OS with a less restrictive license, like one of the BSDs.
rdean400 wrote:
–“As much as the GPL3 purports to enhance freedoms, it seems the effect will be cutting off the nose to spite the face.”
well, that depends on who’s freedoms you are referring too? the GPL has always been about ensuring the same rights for the end user as that of the distributor.
which is why in the case of Tivo, if the distributor can modify and RUN that modified gpl-licenced code on a particular set of hardware, then that right should be passed down to the end user (in other words, those who Tivo distribute the gpl-licenced code to).
FSF did make an compromise in regards to this when it comes to code distributed in ROM, as neither distributor nor end user will be able to change the code.
gplv3 simply further enforces the rights which was the basis for the gpl’s creation. they do this by plugging a hole in gplv2 that allowed distributors to circumvent part of the four freedoms. some developers (such as Linus) think that this hole is ok, as long as he can get the source code that is enough for him. other developers may not be ok with this and want to ensure that they as possible end users, will always be able to use their code on the same conditions as that of the distributor, and may then choose gplv3 for their code since it ensures this.
wether this ends up being a problem for a company such as Tivo is inconsequential. it’s up to the developers to decide how their code is allowed to be used, and if they want Tivo to be able to use their code while circumventing their end user rights they can continue to licence their code under gplv2 or use gplv3 with an added clause that allows this use.
“In practical terms, the “anti-Tivoization” provisions of the GPL3, which create field of use restrictions, may backfire. Rather than comply with the license, it would be more reasonable to port to an OS with a less restrictive license, like one of the BSDs.”
Absolutely, the reality is Linus wants *adoption* of the *kernel* in embedded devices. His objection is quite clear he believes that wider adoption by *companies*,as long as his “tit-for-tat” use of GPL is complied with changes could benefit *his* kernel.
I believe this is a short *term* view
Without users being able to change the kernel, and anything else on a device through DRM or any other means, changes made by *users* will not be able to be returned to Linux the kernel. It also removes one of the interests in developing new kernel hackers. Its also against those very people who push Linux adoption.
This is ignoring the fact that GPL2 is increasingly being exploited by companies regardless of what you think the spirit of the license is.
There can be no doubt that Linus Torvalds is claiming that someone is a hypocrite. In his own words:
And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.
Later:
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to make my own choice.
Simple question that has already been raised repeatedly here and on Slashdot at least: who in the world thinks or tried to argue that Linus does not have the “freedom” to choice–as opposed to others who would have that “freedom”?
I only found two posters who could possibly have done so, although maybe it was telepathic since nothing they wrote could remotely be interpreted to mean that. Unless the relevant quotes can be found, I think that blind acceptance of Linus’ straw man argument is the real story here–along with OSNews and Information Weekly coming off as very stupid at best. The editor who linked to this junk mentioned that he “read between the lines” to figure out that it was directed to “GPLv3 authors and promoters,” i.e., that Linus is calling every one of that group of people a hypocrite. Since I don’t think that Linus is that stupid, I would be satisfied with just one real person to substitute for what I otherwise believe to be a fake. Perhaps the editor could use his powers of reading between the lines and find, you know, an actual human being.
I will take a shot at this. The poster who initiated the LKML thread simply asked if dual licensing the kernel under GPLv2 and GPLv3 were possible. He wrote nothing suggesting that Linus did not have the “freedom” to choose his own license. The more prominent poster, Mr. Oliva, is a much more interesting case. An excerpt in a response to Linus lays out Mr. Oliva’s entire purpose in that huge, rambling thread:
I’m not trying to impose anything. I’m not pushing anything. I’m defending the GPLv3 from accusations that it’s departing from the GPL spirit, and I’m trying to find out in what way Tivoization promotes the goals you perceive as good for Linux, that make GPLv2 advantageous. So far, you haven’t given any single reason about this. You talked about tit-for-tat, you said anti-Tivoization in GPLv3 was bad, but you don’t connect the dots. Forgive if I get the impression that you’re just fooling yourself, and misguiding a *lot* of people out there in the process.
What else is there? I have found nothing. I can only conclude that Linus Torvalds is willing to take anyone who disagrees with him and at his whimsy try to make up stuff about them, such as pretending that they think or try to argue that he lacks “freedom” to choose his license. Mr. Oliva seems to be right, that Linus is misguiding a lot of people out there.
If I have made a mistake here, please point it out.
Edited 2007-07-16 00:34
“””
The poster who initiated the LKML thread simply asked if dual licensing the kernel under GPLv2 and GPLv3 were possible.
“””
I don’t want to get into a long exchange over it, because I don’t think it would be worth it. But I will say that IMO, that is where it should have ended. Because, for practical purposes, the answer is ‘no’. Even if there was near unanimity among the current devs regarding a license change to *any* other license, the logistics of executing it would be prohibitive. And if that did not prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, there is the spectre of the endless opportunity that such a license change would afford for fostering fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the use of Linux:
“Get the facts. Sponsored by Microsoft. Did you know that the Linux license might not even be valid? And if it is not, you will have to shut down all your production servers which use it?”
Honestly, even if the GPLv3 affords some more protections, it is practically impossible to make the switch and such a change would come with some substantial costs and dangers. And that’s before you even *get* to counting how many devs *want* to make a change.
B3timmons, you follow FSF goings on more closely than I. Have Richard or Eben made any statements about the logistics, and/or the practical considerations of the Linux kernel moving to GPLv3? I’m curious if they have acknowledged any of the concerns that I have.
Edited 2007-07-16 00:52
But I will say that IMO, that is where it should have ended.
It is enough for me that Alan Cox has even considered GPLv3. I assume that he is reasonably aware of the logistics of what would be involved. Linus could have politely said something like, “No. I will not consider that option. This question is settled.” Yes, he might have had to repeat such replies to various people who ask such questions. I can think of worse problems such as inviting flames with insults and such, not that I am immune from that myself.
Honestly, even if the GPLv3 affords some more protections, it is practically impossible to make the switch and such a change would come with some substantial costs and dangers.
There is no doubt about the existence of difficulties and risks. The only question is if the gain is worth the pain, and to Linus’ credit he has at least publicly mentioned this. Alan Cox seems to just want “to get along” for now and stay with GPLv2; if there is a pro-v2 opinion as reasonable as this in the LKML thread, I have not seen it.
Have Richard or Eben made any statements about the logistics, and/or the practical considerations of the Linux kernel moving to GPLv3?
I recall nothing from these two, and, of course, there is no reason to believe that Linus would pay any particular attention to them anyway. However, as you know such considerations have long had at least one answer: copyright assignment (to perhaps a “Linux Copyright Authority” that has no relation to the FSF?).
Last year a member of FSF Europe did address the case of the Linux kernel, but not necessarily suggesting copyright assignment:
http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/…
Of course, others have already been thinking about the logistics, which explains why, for example, we see various estimates for percentages of “v2+” versus “v2 only” code in the kernel.
More generally, while I find it difficult to find errors in the non-technical writings of the FSF, some of the most insightful stuff does not come from it, of course. I just find it to be a useful starting point.
Edited 2007-07-16 02:34
“””
there is no reason to believe that Linus would pay any particular attention to them anyway
“””
As usual, you make good points. Let me start out by saying that I think that people in our community are paying *way* more attention to Linus’ opinion upon matters outside the Linux kernel than is reasonably warranted.
When Linus trolls desktop mailing lists (as a salient example), I simply consider his voice as one in many, many voices. The fact that he contributed code, much of which was accepted, speaks volumes. But it was the *code* speaking. His diatribes on the list were of no special importance, IMO. And the patches did not have to be accepted, except upon the basis of merit.
I share your respect for Alan. I’m kinda glad that Linux is most likely to stay GPLv2. But I’m pondering whether a mix of a GPLv2 kernel, to get our foot in the door, and a partly or largely GPLv3 userland might not be a more effective combination in embedded devices than all one or the other.
Your suggestion of a Linux copyright authority is interesting. That gets us into the very mushy area of distributed vs centralized copyright. There are pros and cons to either, of course. And it depends upon the situation.
But I’ve got to say that distributed copyright, and not having to trust any central entity, gives me the warm fuzzies. Yes, there are no doubt some risks there, too.
I do think that it might be a good thing for Eben to tactfully address the Linux kernel situation from a legal standpoint. As you probably know, I have a huge respect for his ability to get a point across with tact and diplomacy. I believe that his legal opinion regarding the risks and difficulties would be listened to.
The fact that he contributed code, much of which was accepted, speaks volumes. But it was the *code* speaking. His diatribes on the list were of no special importance, IMO. And the patches did not have to be accepted, except upon the basis of merit.
I share your respect for how code “speaks” more effectively–in the normal case. However, Linus (and RMS, etc.) are clearly not in the normal case, are they? While absolute importance may be missing, relative importance is there, as shown, for example, by how rattled some of the GNOME developers were by Linus’ tone. However unworthy the social effect is, it does exist. Yes, RMS also goes out of line, but in a different way.
I used to identify more with the primacy of code, but the Novell/Microsoft patent agreement really shook me up. It forced me to reflect on the importance of other things, such as checks and balances, the press, the law, etc. I was so ridiculously naive and now pay more attention to people other than just technical folks. They hardly have a monopoly on answers outside their domain.
Last year I recall some powerful moments: experiencing some genuine horror in my first glimpse at the diabolical behavior of Bill Gates in his videotaped antitrust deposition; a documentary on the shameful evolution of the modern corporation; a conversation with someone who knows first-hand of how huge populations of Chinese people are criminally maltreated by their leaders–shocking stuff that does not make the headlines.
What all of these have in common with software and what makes something such as the GPL so compelling, is the notion of distribution–of power. Those non-software issues only make me more indignant about things such as Tivoization. To be clear, I don’t even watch TV, but the idea of abusing GPLed software in this way is highly troubling.
You bring up the issue of centralized vs. decentralized copyright, which is itself another question of distribution of power. Perhaps the SFLC will come up with a new idea about that issue one day. In the meantime, we can note that the centralization is itself limited since there are many relatively independent entities involved: FSF and other foundations, Sun and other firms, universities, etc.
Edited 2007-07-16 04:09
I now see a likely misunderstanding in my original post that many other people share.
Many of us interpreted Linus’ statements as suggesting that someone is trying to deny primarily his “choice” (of license). However, since Tivo’s “choice” is also involved and since the GPLv3 does effectively ban the choice of Tivoization, then the precise group that Linus is railing against are those who espouse the GPLv3 for the freedoms it promotes. This is clearly not–as some have claimed–the same as “GPLv3 authors and proponents” since I may, for example, promote the GPLv3 for only other reasons, such as better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, compatibility with the Apache license, or indeed many other perhaps subjective reasons totally unrelated to freedom.
In any case Linus’ charge of hypocrisy is baseless and inappropriate, so it remains true that people continue to be mislead by Linus. What’s worse is that some other kernel hackers often rely on similarly flawed rhetoric with no apparent acknowledgement of flaws found by others. Neuer and Oliva challenged Linus’ main points and, AFAICS, themselves remain unchallenged:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/300
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/21/21
I support the GPLv3 for the freedoms it promotes. This undoubtedly denies Tivo a freedom, namely the freedom–in some hypothetical future–to choose to Tivoize a kernel under GPLv3. To call me a hypocrite, as Linus is doing, is no different than, say, calling an innocent person a hypocrite for her belief in the freedom to live in peace by virtue of the limitation of others’ freedom to kill her.
Linus Torvalds throws around the word “hypocrite” so much, I think he has forgotten what it means, assuming he ever realized it at all. At best, I find his non-technical opinion making to be irresponsible.
Here is an excerpt of Neuer’s unchallenged response to Torvalds:
>
> What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
> you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
> make my own choice.
>
> See? THAT is hypocritical.
It is no more hypocritical than any other instance of restricting one
person’s freedom to protect some freedom of some other person. The law
restricts your freedom to take things from my house in order to
preserve my freedom to own things. That you don’t disagree with that
law indicates that you agree with the majority of people about where
to draw the line between one person’s freedom and another in that
instance, not that you are a hypocrite or that people who steal are
hypocrites (they’re hypocrites if they complain about people stealing
from them).
You have every right to prefer using your copyright to coerce people
to provide source but not keys used to make binaries from that source
run on hardware with which those binaries are distributed.
But people who prefer the GPLv3 in the name of freedom simply favor
making explicit what they felt was always implicit in earlier
versions, which is their wish that people who want to use what “they
designed” do so in ways which comport with freedoms which are more
important to them than the freedom of the hardware developer to design
their system unconstrained (like the freedom of the end user to make
their TiVO work some other way). They are no more hypocrites than you
are for apparently feeling that it’s OK for Robin Hood to steal from
the rich to feed the poor.
Edited 2007-07-16 15:16
“””
…since I may, for example, promote the GPLv3 for only other reasons, such as better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, compatibility with the Apache license, or indeed many other perhaps subjective reasons totally unrelated to freedom…
“””
I absolutely *love* this part of your post. There is *so much* to like about GPLv3, aside from the controversial parts that generate 95+% of the discussion.
It’s unfortunate that the controversial bits could not be separated out from the core, with which hardly any current GPL supporter could have a disagreement, except maybe regarding the resulting license *length*.
I absolutely *love* this part of your post. There is *so much* to like about GPLv3, aside from the controversial parts that generate 95+% of the discussion.
Although there is too much heat and too little light, is that more a reflection upon a license or upon people’s scant rationality in the discussion?
Edited 2007-07-16 16:02
Well, my concerns about GPLv3 have always been a bit oblique to the license itself:
1. License fragmentation.
2. Damage to community solidarity.
3. Putting us at a disadvantage with respect to embedded devices.
Largely, I’ve been concerned about its potential destabilizing effects upon community, which I consider to be of overriding importance. Our sense of community is every bit as valuable as our code.
Only #3 could be considered a concern about the license itself, and it is a matter of opinion as to the perceived best strategy for maximizing the benefits of FOSS to the world. I happen to think that there are some advantages to our getting our foot in the door rather than forcing manufacturers to VxWorks or other proprietary platforms, by effectively removing FOSS software from the candidate list.
Just so that I am not misunderstood, I am very much *anti-DRM*. I’m just not convinced that GPLv3’s provisions are necessarily the most effective action we could have taken.
I happen to think that there are some advantages to our getting our foot in the door rather than forcing manufacturers to VxWorks or other proprietary platforms, by effectively removing FOSS software from the candidate list.
You have put well a classic dilemma. I do share your value of community, and my best response right now is to just fight my stupid instincts and try harder to follow the principle of charity. For those who do not know, it relates to rhetoric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Edited 2007-07-16 17:00
What a stupid troll of an article (not by OSNews but by DisInformation Week) This has already gone around all the news sites and been debunked.
They’re likely being paid by Microsoft, in light of several recent GNU/Linux stories by them.
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/15/dinformationweek-rebuttal/
“LINUS CALLS GPLv3 “A FINE CHOICE” – is a title that InformationWeek could have used for their article. It would have been very selective quoting, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem for InformationWeek.
Nor does pretending that old emails are new emails, or misrepresenting people.”
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/15/gplv3-filp-flop/
“From my personal point of view, InformationWeek has been publishing a lot of Linux material recently. Rarely does it offer any encouragement. Some of it defends Microsoft’s side. From what I could gather, InformationWeek tells us that you can’t install Linux on laptops, that Linux users are a cult, that GPLv3 is evil, that Microsoft has legitimate IP claims against Linux, that OpenOffice.org is ‘dangerous’, and that Linus Torvalds calls people at FSF “hyprocrites”. Keep InformationWeek on your mental FUDlist from now on. This suspicion seems justifiable.”
“Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology is a key evangelism function. “Independent” analysts’ reports should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent consultants should write articles, give conference presentations, moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set themselves up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour. “Independent” academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and granted research money).”
Internal MS document. From Comes v Microsoft.
InformationWeek is not owned by FSF, and does not have to mirror their opinions. Believe or not, OSNews is also not owned by FSF and does not have to mirror their opinions.
The problem that I have with Linus’ position is that his own argument can be used against him.
If you don’t like the FSF and the GPL, then don’t use it.
He made the decision long ago to use the GPL with his kernel, and at the time he was only contributing to a nearly complete set of GNU tools. Now that he’s all rich and famous he is trying to dictate policy to the organisation that predates him.
The GPL is the property of the FSF, and only they can answer what the “spirit” of their license was intended to be when they drew it up.
I agree, Linus should stop using GPL and, together with other developers, move kernel to another license. Linus is someone I could come to terms with, while FSF can be nothing else but enemy.
Why should he stop using a license which he likes?
Linus likes the GPLv2 because it gives him everything he wants “tit-for-tat” and he is perfectly capable of separating his opinions about RMS and the FSF from the license.
Because of the hardware vendors. A lot of them are not willing to disclose technical details about their product, no to even mention the idea to write a driver under license compatible with Linux kernel.
I am sure that lot of consumers and Linux users would like to have more freedom when buying hardware. Yes, freedom.
You didn´t really answer the question.
You suggested that Linus and the other kernel developers, should stop using the GPL, you still havn´t given a reason for doing that. What you have given is a reason for using GPLv3, which isn´t an answer to the question.
Maybe if I rephrase it:
If Linus thinks that GPLv2 gives him everything he wants from a license, why should he stop using it?
I have given you an answer, but you do not understand. The reasons are practical, they would make system more interoperable with the rest of the industry. Business reasons, in fact.
They are, by no means, reasons to use GPL v3, quite the opposite.
But, if you think that kernel is purely Torvalds’ hobby, then you are right, he should use the license he likes the most. I don’t think so. I think that Torvalds is receiving fair amount of money for his work.
[quote]I have given you an answer, but you do not understand. The reasons are practical, they would make system more interoperable with the rest of the industry. Business reasons, in fact.
They are, by no means, reasons to use GPL v3, quite the opposite.[/quote]
Okay, sorry I´ve misread and misunderstood your post,
If I understands you right (this time), you´re suggesting allowing closed source drivers in the kernel. I can´t imaging how that would work. How would that insure that hardware is still supported after the vendor end-of-supports the hardware? Which is one the reasons I like Linux, I have a lot of hardware no longer working under Windows but working perfectly under Linux years after the vendor ended support. I think that gives more freedom then closed source drivers.
It´s not his hobby, but it´s his project and the part of kernel he hold copyright on, he gets to choose the license.
Can’t there be some kind of hook for dynamic loading of the drivers ? Something like old SYSV (UNIX System V) Streams interface. One could hook a chain of pseudo-devices to a physical device. I think that it still exists in Solaris.
That would solve the problem of proprietary and closed source drivers.
“””
That would solve the problem of proprietary and closed source drivers.
“””
That depends upon what you mean by “solving” the “problem”.
NVidia has already “solved” it by including a GPL layer that loads into the kernel and implements an interface which the proprietary part can talk to.
Problem “solved”.
I was thinking about general solution, call it API if you wish.
I was thinking about general solution, call it API if you wish. That would speed up the driver development process, too, and even open source drivers could benefit from it.
“””
But, if you think that kernel is purely Torvalds’ hobby, then you are right, he should use the license he likes the most. I don’t think so. I think that Torvalds is receiving fair amount of money for his work.
“””
I’m not sure what hobby vs non has to do with anything. But it is important to keep in mind the distributed copyright of the kernel. Linus may be one of the gatekeepers for new contributions, but beyond that he is just a particularly oft-quoted copyright holder. The percentage of code in the kernel written by him is not even very large, these days. This link (pdf file) sheds some light on who is authoring the code, these days:
http://tinyurl.com/2jf5xh
And so I would propose that all this focus on Linus, much as I respect him, is really misplaced.
If we or the media want to focus on one person, which would still be a misguided thing to do, Al Viro or David Miller might be more suitable targets.
I, personally, am a Linus Torvalds fan. But all this Linus-mania is a bad thing. And we, as (hopefully), a
more informed segment of the population, should not be promoting it.
Edited 2007-07-16 14:29
Linus hasn’t really been doing much hacking on the kernel for a very long time now. His talents in that capacity were never even exceptional (not bad either though), but regardless, that isn’t where respect for him comes from. It’s more his rather unique style of distributed management that became a model for ever open source project after it. ESRs rather famous The Cathedral and the Bazaar paper was written about stuff he saw in the linux project, and how he consciously identified and used the principals for his own wildly successful project, fetchmail.
The tech media for the most part are a bunch of morons, and it takes a lot of sifting and fact checking to actually get the straight story, especially from a place like Information Week. Al Viro or David Miller won’t generate anywhere near the hits as “ZOMG!! LINUS HATEZ0RZ FREE SOFTWARE!!!!!!!11” will.
Linus clearly likes the GPLv2, otherwise he wouldn´t be using it. Weather or not he likes the FSF, is irrelevant for the use of their license.
No he didn´t, the Linux-kernel is not part of the GNU tools, since it is not a GNU project.
How is arguing his opinion, dictating policy is another organization?
“He made the decision long ago to use the GPL with his kernel, and at the time he was only contributing to a nearly complete set of GNU tools.
No he didn´t, the Linux-kernel is not part of the GNU tools, since it is not a GNU project.”
I love this…does anyone else see whats the problem here, anyone. answers on a postcard.
The fact that the kernel is not part of the GNU tools is a cheap debating point and irrelevant.
Whether he likes the FSF is completely relevant. The GPL is an expression of the philosophy of the FSF.
The FSF have now decided that the original GPL did not adequately express their views and have decided to change it, and that’s why he has a problem.
Linux does not just “express his opinion”. He tries to browbeat those who disagree with him into submission.
He has said he doesnt feel the need to change to GPLv3 because GPLv2 works for his, and many other kernel developers, vision about Linux kernel.
Then of course there are those who attacks him because of it *cough cough* Alexander Oliva *cough cough* making sure he wont be wanting to review the situation anytime soon.
The emails on the mailing list are about the disagreement of Linux to forbid tivoization. Tivoization means creating hardware which prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware. I think what Thom induced from that (i.e. that Linus complains about the authors of the GPLv3) is right, however quite exaggerated. We already do known that Linux disagrees with the FSF. Btw, Linus is not a very “diplomatic” person, so his move is nothing unusual.
I however think that this restriction (forbid the tivoization) from the GPLv3 was the right thing to do.
It must really be said, the GPL is not free in the sense that it allows you to do what ever you want with it. GPL software are for the community of persons who like GPL, and are disposed to contribute back.
GPL forbids companies or people to use GPL’ed software to create closed source programs. The reason for that is that authors of closed source software won’t contribute anything back. The community created several multi-millions-dollar worth software. They agree to give you the sources of that expensive software if you agree in contributing your sources back to the community. If a company (or an individual) does not want to pay that price, he will have to look at another way to create a similar software (e.g.: by hiring a developer to do that).
This is the price of using GPL’ed software. However, some ugly people call this the “viral” behavior.
Tivoization restrict the rights of the authors of GPL software (i.e. of their own software) on some hardware. So its the right of that community to tell “we will not give you our sources to do that”.
So, of course, most companies will not like that. What they want is community created software for free. However, the GPL will not give them that. It will only gives you something, if you give/pay something back to the community.
Its the individual/companies decision if they want to pay that price.
To give Linus some credit, at least he is willing to share his opinion. It would indeed be worse if he acted upon erroneous sentiments and never explained any of it.
To recap, he called hypocrites those who argue on the basis of freedom for the GPLv3, which bans the freedom to Tivoize code under GPLv3. However, anyone who follows his line would also have to call hypocrites those who argue on the basis of freedom for the GPLv2, which bans the freedom to, say, make code under GPLv2 proprietary; or those argue on the basis of freedom for the BSD license, which bans the freedom to, say, redistribute BSD software with no copyright notices whatsoever; or indeed those who argue on the basis of freedom for any of several kinds of license–not just software, since by definition a license grants a freedom to do something, and many licenses involve restrictions on other freedoms.
It is clear that OSNews and Information Week are perfectly willing to not only pretend that a baseless claim from a month ago is urgent enough to post as news but also to put on it their own deceptive, selective spin.
Edited 2007-07-16 18:06
It is clear that OSNews and Information Week are perfectly willing to not only pretend that a baseless claim from a month ago is urgent enough to post as news but also to put on it their own deceptive, selective spin.
Agreed. This is hardly anything new as its just the same rehashed opinions.
Edited 2007-07-16 18:20
His statement was aimed at those who argue on the basis of freedom for the GPL3, but keep applying constant pressure on him to support relicensing of the kernel, thereby attempting to remove his freedom to choose his own license.
This is what I thought at first, too. However, where is this constant pressure? Consider that the original post that started the gargantuan thread was a mere request about the feasability of dual licensing. It was not a direct request to relicense nor are such posts anything but occasional. While other posts may have not opposed the initial post, these posts were unrelated to relicensing but instead considered specific issues such as Tivoization.
Suppose these occasional posts constitute constant pressure anyway. That’s like the constant pressure of anyone asking me to do anything. I am entirely free to ignore it; my freedom to act is not even in the picture. This is especially true on the net with a kill file or plenty of willing comrades to shout down anyone.
In short, how can anyone remove someone else’s freedom to choose their own license, short of some kind of legal maneuver or, say, physical duress? After realizing how absurd this is, I could not help but refer to the larger context and see that Linus was indeed referring to the freedom of Tivo as a designer to make their own choices. From his email:
———————
But they do have the right to make their own choices, and try their own
strategies. And people shouldn’t complain about that. If somebody doesn’t
like the Tivo box, and the Tivo service requirements, just don’t *buy* the
damn thing, and don’t sign up for the service.
Whining about Tivo’s choices is just stupid.
And anybody who thinks others don’t have the “right to choice”, and then
tries to talk about “freedoms” is a damn hypocritical moron.
———————
Where it gets confusing is deeper in the thread when he writes:
———————
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while
you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to
make my own choice.
———————
This need not imply that the choice here is of license, it just as well could be Linus putting himself in the role of a designer such as Tivo, where he indeed would have no freedom to Tivoize under the GPLv3.
Edited 2007-07-16 18:54
“””
This need not imply that the choice here is of license, it just as well could be Linus putting himself in the role of a designer such as Tivo, where he indeed would have no freedom to Tivoize under the GPLv3.
“””
And this is why I think that all this discussion about who has the right to this freedom or that is largely a red herring.
Freedom is, to a great extent, a matter of moving around partitions: OK, now I have more freedom in this area and you have less. But if we move this partition over there, then I have more freedom and you have less.
Why not cut to the chase and talk about: “They want to lock down the hardware that we buy, and we don’t want them to, so what is the best strategy to thwart them?”
Seems to me that would be more efficient than all this discussion of freedom, rights, and hypocrisy.
I don’t see that there is really any sort of “right” or “wrong” with respect to Tivo. Just stuff that is desirable or undesirable to various parties.
I don’t find what Tivo does is wrong. Just undesirable to me.
Of course, then you get to the difficult question of how to direct your limited resoutces to best effect. Which is where I will stop. Because I was never any good at strategy games. 😉
Edit: And I *still* think that all this focus on what Linus says is illogical. If don’t say that, I feel that I am contributing to the problem.
Edited 2007-07-16 19:20
Why not cut to the chase and talk about: “They want to lock down the hardware that we buy, and we don’t want them to, so what is the best strategy to thwart them?”
I can see three quite distinct questions:
1. How to stop the most general class of lock down strategies, including what Tivo does?
2. How to stop Tivoization?
3. How to stop Tivoization of GPLed software?
I have not thought much about Question 1. Instead, my concern has been restricted to Question 3 and follows from Question 0:
0. How to guarantee the ability to continue making software in a certain way, i.e., software that will remain under the fullest protection of the “four freedoms”?
Tivoization makes Question 0 certainly more difficult. To the best of my knowledge, no license currently provides the answer to Question 0 as well as the GPLv3. We will have to stay tuned for the answer (e.g., GPLv3 and what kinds of action???) to the easiest of the others, Question 3.
Edit: And I *still* think that all this focus on what Linus says is illogical. If don’t say that, I feel that I am contributing to the problem.
Perhaps we can agree here that OSNews and Information Week (and heck Slashdot and whoever else) blew it by blowing it up?
Edited 2007-07-16 20:43
“””
3. How to stop Tivoization of GPLed software?
I have not thought much about Question 1. Instead, my concern has been restricted to Question 3 and follows from Question 0:
0. How to guarantee the ability to continue making software in a certain way, i.e., software that will remain under the fullest protection of the “four freedoms”?
“””
A grim view, since question #1 has, by far, the greatest potential impact. So called “Tivoization” is quite tame compared to the more general case… where our PC motherboards refuse to boot untrusted OS kernels. (New security breakthrough! The end of computer viruses! Get yours today!)
And while manufacturers might have at least *some* interest in cutting costs by using OSS software in embedded devices… whipping up a new PC BIOS, basically a variation on a theme, is peanuts. Not much leverage for us there, I fear.
Edited 2007-07-16 21:12
A grim view, since question #1 has, by far, the greatest potential impact. So called “Tivoization” is quite tame compared to the more general case… where our PC motherboards refuse to boot untrusted OS kernels.
All I can say here is just a heads up to you and any of us who wants to stop attempts at a general lockdown (hardly a conspiracy theory, this lockdown is a public point of pride for Microsoft et al):
See http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms_gplv3_launch_transcript
for the part about “Treacherous Computing”. For anyone who does not yet fully comprehend the GPLv3 (me, at least), RMS notes that the GPLv3 also prohibits–in addition to Tivoization–Treacherous Computing:
There’s another variation on tivoization, which is, Treacherous Computing. That’s where the computer is designed so that a web site you are trying to talk to can tell whether you are running the officially approved software or your own modified version. And if you are running your own modified version then it says, “they don’t trust you,” so you are not allowed to talk to the site. Well, with GPL version 3 that’s not allowed either.
Although it is not clear to me the total extent to which the GPLv3 discourages lockdown, we can clearly see that the discouragement includes more than just (“consumer”) tivoization. Are there any other licenses that help discourage lockdown of their covered works? If so, how and to what extent?
Edited 2007-07-16 21:42
“2. How to stop Tivoization? ” My gut reaction is to say don’t buy a tivo.
Please ignore the unhumor that follows. Mr. Straw is purely a ficticional character that personifies some of these arguments as they swirl in my head.
“dont’ buy a tivo.”
int strawman()
{
But that doesn’t stop the people who don’t believe from buying one… no they’re still free to buy it. But they’re heathens, they won’t listen. They still think that their freedom to have cheap and easy to use equipment is more important than my freedom to add an ftp server to their tv. No, if they can’t be converted, there needs to be a way to control the hardware they use. NO SECRETS. They need to use open hardware. Maybe GPL V4 can include a set of minimum requirements?
return (0);
}
I guess I would be more understanding if Linus outlined specifically what freedoms he doesn’t want restricted in GPLv3.
Quite frankly, I don’t see any problems philosophically with GPLv3 in implementation or spirit.
What concerns me however, is the argument that he makes in that any restriction in his right to choose, is bad.
I liken this to chaos. I mean if I restrict your right to harm the open source community is that bad just because YOU cannot?
Lets apply that logic to the SCO case once and see how that would work out.
On second thought, lets not.
What we have to remember is that the provisioned rights of the GPLv2 are under attack since they were formed.
Corporations in their greed are trying to take away copyrights from authors works to hitch a free ride, as well as destroy the ability not just to download free software, but to make ANY software that hasn’t gone through a expensive copyright/patent legal procedure.
Procedures bought and paid for with Tax payer money, and cash slipped under the table to judges, attorneys and law makers.
I do not see how open source software GPL or BSD will survive under the new environment of todays law enforcement and legal climate for very much longer.
All it takes is just one blackberry case that is not overturned and a new dark age will begin.
That is why it is imperative the GPL change with the times, and that everyone adopts GPLv3 as quickly as possible to prevent this sort of future.
-Hack
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
–Benjamin Franklin