Open Source infighting over the GPLv3 just turned nastier - in a post on the Linux kernel mailing list, Linus Torvalds effectively called the authors of the GPLv3 'hypocritical morons'. InformationWeek has reported on the issue: "Linux creator Linus Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites and likened them to religious fanatics - the latest sign of a growing schism in the open source community between business-minded developers like Torvalds and free software purists."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Were his words directed at the GPL3 authors?
No, they weren't.
Linus is in a discussion with several people about the GPLv3. Linus brings up how the GPLv3 limits the "right of choice" of others. Then, he says: "And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron." And then you argue that that line is NOT directed at GPLv3 authors and supporters?
If you do not see how that is directed at the GPLv3 authors and supporters, then you really don't know how to read.
Member since:2005-07-06
It may indirectly meant for them, but it's a more general statement. If GPLv3 authors and supporters happen to fall under his statement, oh well. Linus is right anyway. Not his fault if they fall under that.
Besides, by saying he's directing it at them, it's saying you think GPLv3 authors/supports dont think others have the
"right to choice."
Do you believe that?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-10
Thom, you were really desperate for this flamewar, weren't you?
So the article claims that he Linus called the authors of the GPL3 "hypocritical morons". Now, did he actually do this?
No, he didn't.
So, what did he do?
In a discussion about the GPL3 somebody brought up one argument and Linus tells him that people using this particular argument are "hypocritical morons".
Now, you seem to have been aware that that is a far cry from what the article alledges, that's why instead of simply posting the beginning of the article as usual, you wrote a teaser on your own, this time stating he didn't actually call him that, but "effectively".
And now you're at it again. You still want to spin what Linus said into an all out condemnation of the authors of the GPL3. Thom, that's pathetic.
Edited 2007-07-15 17:13
Member since:2007-01-29
Well if you can't tell the difference between a direct personal insult and a bold rethoric statement, it's quite obviously you who missed a couple of english classes. Calling people acting stupid morons (in their face) is a subtly different thing than refering to people acting stupidly as morons.
That said, I like the general idea of destroying all intellectual property claims whatsoever, but in a real world that might not be the most pragmatic way of dealing with things. However, as always it is already to late. Mode blood will be shed over this...
Member since:2005-06-29
No, it doesn't.
I respectfully disagree. The posting (a) adds useful and relevant information to the InformationWeek article, and (b) avoids injecting particular bias in posting.
I consider that to be well within journalistic standards.
[edited to correct publication name]
Edited 2007-07-16 00:00
Member since:
2005-07-10
Were his words directed at the GPL3 authors?
No, they weren't.
Were they said in a different context?
Yes, they were.
So does posting this article meat minimal journalistic standards?
No, it doesn't.