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 248289
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Wow
by llanitedave on Sat 16th Jun 2007 03:58 UTC 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[5]: Wow
by b3timmons on Sat 16th Jun 2007 05:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

We could replace Linus and RMS and the "us vs them" difference would necessarily remain, regardless of who replaced them.

Oops, I meant that the difference would remain if one replacement believed in open source, the other in free software. Sorry.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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[5]: Wow
by pepa on Sat 16th Jun 2007 10:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

Doesn't it boil down to: the copyright (notice) is preserved, and there is no liability? I think you can add all kinds of restrictions to the whole code. (Of course, the original code is still also available 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