Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Jun 2007 22:17 UTC, submitted by prymitive
GNU, GPL, Open Source A lengthy debate that began with a suggestion to dual license the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 continues on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Throughout the ongoing thread Linux creator Linus Torvalds has spoken out on the GPLv2, the upcoming GPLv3, the BSD license, Tivo, the Free Software Foundation, and much more. During the discussion, he was asked we he chose the GPLv2 over the BSD license when he's obviously not a big fan of the FSF.
Thread beginning with comment 248277
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wow
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Jun 2007 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

Anybody that disagrees with Linus and the kernel devs about the Tivoisation issue should start learning to code and start working on Hurd. The sad part is that this thread started with Linus coming as close as ever to a concilliatory attitude towards v3, but then the FSF proponents managed to remind him of why he dislikes them so much.

That's just disrespectful toward contributors to the kernel who simply do not agree with Linus about v3. Some of these contributors may not particularly like the FSF but still may appreciate seeing their concerns addressed in a way that Linus seems to dismiss.

Linus is full enough of himself so as to regularly insist that he has his own mind while suggesting that his skeptics do not (e.g., "FSF follower people") when their opinion happens to coincide with that of the FSF. His disclaimer is that he is a blunt a**hole, but that cute self-deprecation works only to a point. Frankly, it's just a stupid and tiresome distraction.

Fortunately, Linus does a lot of good when it comes to technical issues. He also seems to be an entertaining writer if you overlook all of his silly abuse. However, there needs to be a counterweight to his abusive and sloppy-to-the-point-of-perhaps-deceitful rhetoric.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Wow
by llanitedave on Sat 16th Jun 2007 03:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

Anybody that disagrees with Linus and the kernel devs about the Tivoisation issue should start learning to code and start working on Hurd. The sad part is that this thread started with Linus coming as close as ever to a concilliatory attitude towards v3, but then the FSF proponents managed to remind him of why he dislikes them so much.

That's just disrespectful toward contributors to the kernel who simply do not agree with Linus about v3. Some of these contributors may not particularly like the FSF but still may appreciate seeing their concerns addressed in a way that Linus seems to dismiss.


Not really. It's their choice to contribute to Linux, to Hurd, to BSD, or to any other project. Linus has made it very clear where he stands. You're free to contribute under that understanding, or not.

You can even take a BSD kernel, make you own changes, and release it under a totally different license of your own creation, if you like, to address those concerns you have.

I find myself pretty put off by Linus' lack of social skills, but I also have to agree with his basic argument. He knows what he's doing, he knows what he wants, and he knows what works for him. You can join him, or not.

I also like the idea that his approach is not us vs them. That's what I don't like about rms.

That said, I think GPLv3 is probably the better license, and I am not as blase' about Tivoization as Linus is. It'll be interesting to see how Solaris develops under GPLv3.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Jun 2007 04:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Not really. It's their choice to contribute to Linux, to Hurd, to BSD, or to any other project. Linus has made it very clear where he stands. You're free to contribute under that understanding, or not.

True. However, this does not at all rule out the justification for the understandable concerns that are raised on the list. Linus or anyone else, of course, is entirely free to ignore those concerns.

I also like the idea that his approach is not us vs them. That's what I don't like about rms.

That depends on who "us" and "them" are. Moreover, there is nothing inherently virtuous about such accommodation--we need only look at history.

Indeed, the differing approaches are nothing more than logical consequences of two different philosophies with different goals: (1) Linus and open source and (2) RMS and free software. (1) leans more to marketshare, whereas (2) leans more to freedom. Although (1) and (2) are mostly on the same side, there are inevitable conflicts, and we should all realize that siding with one or the other entails a preference for one goal at the expense of the other.

We could replace Linus and RMS and the "us vs them" difference would necessarily remain, regardless of who replaced them. That being said, I am put off by both in their lack of social skills, but there are certainly bigger issues.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Wow
by antik on Sat 16th Jun 2007 07:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

You can even take a BSD kernel, make you own changes, and release it under a totally different license of your own creation, if you like, to address those concerns you have.

Hold your horses buddy. You can't relicense BSD licensed code!

Copyright (C) 1992-2007 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by Chreo on Sat 16th Jun 2007 08:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

You can even take a BSD kernel, make you own changes, and release it under a totally different license of your own creation, if you like, to address those concerns you have.

Just to clarify, only the MODIFICATIONS will have that new license. The code you used that was under BSD-license will still be under the BSD license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Wow
by mkone on Sat 16th Jun 2007 12:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

You can even take a BSD kernel, make you own changes, and release it under a totally different license of your own creation, if you like, to address those concerns you have.


No you may not. You can use it as part of another project as is, and make modifications to it and not have to distribute them, but you must license the original bits as BSD.

Edited 2007-06-16 12:57

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow
by elsewhere on Sat 16th Jun 2007 23:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

That's just disrespectful toward contributors to the kernel who simply do not agree with Linus about v3. Some of these contributors may not particularly like the FSF but still may appreciate seeing their concerns addressed in a way that Linus seems to dismiss.


Given the controversy and debate surrounding v3, do you think the FSF will respectfully consider dual-licensing the GNU projects to maintain v2 compatibility when v3 is released?

No? Why not? Oh, I see. The primary maintainers/copyright holder of the projects, that being the FSF, has their own objectives with their code and will select the best license for meeting their objectives, regardless of how the developer community at large feels. Is that wrong? Are they being disrespectful to developers that question RMS? Of course not, the FSF has stated all along that the goals for the GNU projects were to promote their interpretation of Free Software via the four freedoms.

Why should Linus be held to a different standard? He never pretended or inferred that his choice of the GPL was for any reason other than ensuring source code is always available. Anybody that thought otherwise should have considered that before submitting code, just as anybody having submitted code the GNU projects cannot really dictate how the FSF should license their code now.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow
by b3timmons on Sun 17th Jun 2007 01:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Given the controversy and debate surrounding v3, do you think the FSF will respectfully consider dual-licensing the GNU projects to maintain v2 compatibility when v3 is released?

Where I differed with you was not with what the responsibility of the copyright holder should be but what is appropriate for the community around the project.

If I recall correctly, you suggested that the GPLv3 proponents should shut up and write code for something else, and I reject this type of advice. It sounds like when someone (not saying you) says shut up about U.S. policies or move to Canada.

Edited 2007-06-17 01:21

Reply Parent Score: 3