Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 5th Aug 2006 20:19 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
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 149783
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-12
Torvalds says the GPL is about quid pro quo, and the reason he chose the GPL was the quid pro quo of the GPL ensures the sharing of code, and modifications are put back into the original. For Torvalds, it was a technical choice - it ensured the constant growth and improvement of his kernel.
What it seems to me that the FSF is trying to do with GPLv3 is to continue ensuring quid pro quo - the sharing of code and improvements put back into the system. DRM is most definitely a potential barrier to quid pro quo. DRM can be used to prevent the sharing of code.
It does not appear to me that the FSF is trying to be political, or is trying to use the license for activism. It is trying to prevent a threat to the original intent of the license.
Thus, Linus Torvalds, quite frankly, should be very pro GPLv3, for pure technical reasons.
Also, something that has become abundantly clear on this thread is that the Microsoft astroturfers are in full force demonizing the GPL.
MS is the only entity out there that is threatened by the GPL. Their business strategy is purely proprietary (not bad in of itself), and maintaining their monopoly and lock in. GPL, with it's quid pro quo stance, and rapid adoption and huge succcess, is a threat to monopoly control and lock in as a business strategy.
Therefore, Microsoft and it's paid astroturfers have massive incentive to completely trash the GPL on discussion forums such as this one.
Not that the GPL isn't perfect, or that it is the best license. It has it's strengths and weaknesses. It's one open source license among many, and is good in some situations and not so good for others.
But just be wary of those completely flamming the GPL.