"Fans of open source software have been buzzing since Linus Torvalds, creator of the popular Linux operating system, indicated he wouldn't adopt a new version of the license under which Linux is distributed. Torvalds' opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world. In an interview via e-mail with Forbes, Torvalds discusses GPLv3, digital rights management and sharks with laser beams. "From where I'm standing, [the GPLv3] says that you suddenly can't use the software in certain 'evil ways' (where evil is defined by the FSF--it doesn't actually cover the James Bond kind of evil, but if you can see Richard Stallman as a less dashing James Bond, it would be that kind of evil)."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-16
It looks like suddenly we all need to turn into politicians, when we are only good at writing software.
Linus' stance is political. Claiming that his stance is not political is just a poor excuse for not backing it up.
This comes to mind (some New Zealand history):
During the Apartheid era in South Africa Springbok rugby players were chosen on the basis of race and Maori rugby players were at first not included in tours of South Africa. By the 1970s public protests and political pressure forced the New Zealand Rugby Union to include Maori when they played South Africa.
Prime Minister Robert Muldoon gave permission for a Springbok Rugby tour of New Zealand in 1981. ...
<http://www.aucklandcitylibraries.com/general.aspx?ct=738&id=3738>...
(The South Africans excluded blacks from their team, and considered Maaori to be honourary whites for the purposes of the tour.) Those who thought the tour should not have gone ahead were often said to have political views. But it seems to me that the opinion that the tour should have gone ahead was a political view also.
Member since:2005-07-12
In some people's minds EVERYTHING is political, even if it wasn't originally intended to be so.
I personally think Linux is simply being pragmatic. He already has a license that works for him (GPL2), and the new license has to offer him something better before it becomes a viable replacement.
It sounds like he isn't convinced that it is.
Member since:
2006-02-06
After reading the article, my opinion about Linus has improved a lot.
He is just an engineer. He shouldn't be held responsible for other people's political failures. Why are they so interested in him adopting v3?. What is wrong with v2, what is wrong with the BSD license?. Will the software's capabilities change because of a change in license?.
It looks like suddenly we all need to turn into politicians, when we are only good at writing software.
Some time ago I agreed with the opinion of some people about Linux being too big to be a one man responsibility. Now I am starting to think I was wrong. When there are too many opinionated people on the same boat, it goes nowhere. Linus may not have been the fastest guy adopting new technologies in the past, but Linux has been there for almost 15 years and hopefully it will stay a lot longer, regarless of the license.
It is his project (which by the way, anyone can fork from) and GPL2 is not that bad...or is it?.