Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 5th Aug 2006 20:19 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
GNU, GPL, Open Source Linus Torvalds had harsh comments about the committees organized by the Free Software Foundation to help it draft version 3 of the GNU Public License. However, so far as NewsForge can determine, none of those actually involved in the process agree with Torvalds' assessment that the FSF isn't listening to feedback.
Thread beginning with comment 149475
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Urghhh..........
by butters on Sun 6th Aug 2006 04:49 UTC in reply to "Urghhh.........."
Member since:

Linus' point is that the market should decide to reject uber-restrictive devices, not a software license. The GPLv2 doesn't place any restriction on what kinds of features can be implemented in covered software. It merely places restrictions on distribution.

If I don't feel that a vendor should restrict what kinds of code or media I can run/play on their device, then I won't buy it. Furthermore, the GPLv2 makes sure that the vendor's "evil" features don't affect my ability to access and modify the code to work as I please.

For me, the idea that makes free software exciting is that I can modify the source to do whatever I please. That is the permission granted by the GPLv2 that more than makes up for the distribution requirements. In other words, the GPLv2 is a license that offers unparalleled rights to users while only placing modest restrictions on distributors.

The GPLv3 places restrictions in this core permission while at the same time enhancing the distribution requirements. In this sense, it is easy to see why Linus thinks the GPLv3 is inferior to the GPLv2. It strips permissions and add requirements for both parties.

I disagree with Linus on the merits of the discussion process, however. For me, it has been very fulfilling. When it started, I was all for a much-needed update to the GPL. However, as the process has forced the community to really examine and discuss the new license in detail, I have finally come to the conclusion that the GPLv2 is significantly better for the community than anything they've proposed for the GPLv3.

In fact, I think the CDDL might even be better...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Urghhh..........
by pepa on Mon 7th Aug 2006 02:11 in reply to "RE: Urghhh.........."
pepa Member since:

Linus' point is that the market should decide to reject uber-restrictive devices, not a software license.

But those devices run GPLed software, where you can examine the source, but you can never run a modified version on that device. The code that is 'contributed back' might be useless anyway on another device. So it is a loophole that will take away some of your freedoms that the GPL is hoping to protect.

Reply Parent Score: 1