"There's been a lot of talk on lists and blogs about an exchange between Linus Torvalds, Jonathan Schwartz and Theo de Raadt regarding licensing and documentation. It all started with a 'cynical' message from Linus about Sun's motivation with regard to Open Source. Jonathan Schwartz responded by extending Linus a dinner invitation. What? The romance was briefly interrupted by a message from Theo pointing out the doublespeak."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-28
I agree with you that linux do not have a "corporate level" in his communications. But i would not be surprised if he simply don't want to.
I agree that it does not seem to be professional, but "professional", here, since everything is analyzed, means "with a strategy". I don't think that linux wants to play the industry game with its machinations. I think that he wants to keep his role of "leader of amateur project" and the naivety that goes with.
Why ? because linux hackers wont like the duplicity and unclear positions that any strategy in communication implies. Hackers are hard enough to manage, and since linux project do not have any mean to keep people working with them, you must not corrupt the soul of the project. And i'am pretty confident that Linus himself hates to calculate the impact of what he says to business.
The other point is that linus do not represent any corporation. He does not represent any business. So then, what are the reason to be happy of sun openness other than technical ? none ! simply none ... And since technical (in computer and legal terms) are not really satisfying, linus says "i'am not satisfied". This is the nature of open source, this is why open source is what it is. Business and open source mix well together under the condition that you do not try to keep your open source project under the business rules. You can run an open source project and try to do business with it, but the opposite will always fail.
This is the "here is my code and do business with it if you want" behavior. The developer might be happy to be paid for his job, but whatever happens, he don't want his work to be conditioned by your business problems, especially if they are political. This is the main reason of open source success, and this is why i want linus to continue to be rude with business. Playing corporations games won't pay, because it is not the how open source works.
[edit: typos]
Edited 2007-06-17 10:22
Member since:2005-07-08
Linus said that there is no reason to move Linux to the GPLv3 unless Sun does the same with OpenSolaris and ZFS in particular. He implied that Sun will not use the GPLv3 if Linux goes GPLv3. Therefore, he claims, the ball is in Sun's court. If Linux does not go GPLv3, it will be because Sun is not interested in license compatibility. Sun is the enemy.
This is Linus playing defense. He started by restating the fact that he doesn't agree with the philosophy of the FSF. But many of the Linux kernel developers do, and they represent an important bloc that could leave if OpenSolaris goes GPLv3 and Linux does not. This is why he's dialing up the rhetoric on Sun's nefarious intentions concerning the GPLv3. Linus had the choice of whether to take the lead on GPLv3 or attack its proponents, and he made his choice.
Linus is wrong about Schwartz. They are so close in terms of their positions on various aspects of free software. I really do think they should have dinner and discover just how much they agree upon. Putting Linux and OpenSolaris under the same license (or mutually compatible licenses) would be a landmark moment in the history of free software. It's bigger than any issue Linus may have with the de-fanged TiVo language.
License proliferation is perhaps a greater threat to free software than software patents. While we can only do so much about software patents, we have an opportunity to make a powerful statement against license proliferation. The first step is for Linus to realize that license proliferation isn't his pet issue that he can use to attack Sun. What the free software community doesn't need right now is for Linus' cynicism to get in the way of a potential breakthrough.
Member since:
2005-07-08
All we can ask as free software advocates is that software and hardware vendors establish and act upon plans to become more friendly to the free software community by opening specification and interfaces. In this respect, Sun is surpassing our expectations by also steadily moving to free software licensing for their own software products. They have not finished carrying out their plans, and I believe that this is part of the "duplicity" that Theo aptly notes.
What we see today is a large software vendor in the middle of a transition period that has already had a positive impact on the status of free software in the IT industry. Not all of their specifications are open yet, and therefore it is still hard to support and enhance their products with free software. Intel isn't completely open either, but the free software community has been much more accepting of their analogous free software stump speeches.
I think that Linus' "cynical" email was a mistake. It forced Schwartz to smooth things over without having anything to announce publicly. The challenge of rallying the troops as a leader of a free software project is that your enemies and "uneasy partners" can read the mailing list. For Linus to assert in the same email that license compatibility with OpenSolaris is mutually beneficial while also questioning Sun's intentions regarding ZFS was a step forward and then a step back.
If the intention was to goad Sun into making a statement about their plans for ZFS, then it failed. All we got was a vague assertion that they would like ZFS to run on Linux without any explanation as to how they would make this possible. Obviously Sun has nothing to say about ZFS that we don't already know. In the process, Linus has shown that his instinct is to respond to progress with cynicism.
Both Linus and Schwartz are technologists that have risen to prominence and share the burden of having far too many people analyzing their public comments. In this respect, Linus could learn a thing or two from Schwartz. When your counterpart announces progress, praise it as such. If he fails to capitalize on an opportunity to make progress, express regret. If he says nothing at all and you express distrust or discontent, expect him to try to take the matter offline.
As silly as it sounds, the dinner invite makes sense. Schwartz can't have Linus publicly badmouthing Sun's progress toward openness, and Linus can't be so dismissive of Sun's efforts. Schwartz needs to tell Linus that they are both on the same page as far as embracing the practical advantages of free software--it's just that Linus had the advantage of starting from scratch, whereas Schwartz has to steer a ship.
I'm sure that Schwartz would appreciate a vote of confidence from Linus. But failing that, Linus should have just noted that license compatibility with OpenSolaris would be a good thing and left it at that. The rest of the the "cynical" email had nothing to do with the GPLv3 relicensing issue, and it simply should not have been said. I'm not sure that an apology is completely necessary, but I wouldn't take it off the table--the dinner table, that is.