Here is an interview with Richard Stallman about a range of free software topics including GPLv3 and comment on the Microsoft patent issue. Stallman has a go at Linus Torvalds even suggesting that if people want to keep their freedom they better not follow Torvalds. From the interview: "The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-12
"I find Linus' perspective more balanced and realistic. I find Stallman's perspective to be more idealogical."
Why...please justify this statement. You are mixing many things together. Both Linus and Stallman are political.
You could argue that Linus caters to companies, and Stallman is based on idealogical reasons.
If you are referring to realistic, being binary blobs. Regardless of your views. I prefer the FSF pro-active approach of removing these with projects like Gnash which benefit desktop GNU.
If by balanced you mean Stallman won't compromise with free software. I see that compromise only benefits in the *short term*, and has no benefits I see long term.
...but then you string together a stack of meaningless cliques.
Member since:2005-07-10
Linus has a balanced view because he views software as software and not as a tool to ensure world freedom.
Asking for hardware vendors to open up their hardware for hacking just because they use GPL software is ridiculous.
If you still don't feel that Linus's view is more balanced then I don't know what in this world can convince you. May be you just don't want to even be convinced because you want to hack your TiVO and you are happy because GPL is trying to get you that:)
Edited 2007-09-12 07:57
Member since:2005-07-08
You could argue that Linus caters to companies, and Stallman is based on idealogical reasons.
Linus doesn't "caters to companies" - typical FSF zealotism. Some FSF zealots have become so stupid lately that these days dare to say that people who thinks that the GPLv2 is better than the GPLv3 is "company-friendly" - like if people who use the GPLv2 would be using a anti-freesoftware license! Does the GPLv3 license makes the GPLv2 obsolete or "non-free"? Certainly not!
As you say, Linus is political: Actually, he has said the GPLv3 is crap beacause the GPLv2 is a _better_ freesoftware/opensource license. In other words, he seem to think the GPLv3 is less freesoftware/opensource friendly. I pretty much agree with him, so does many people.
What Stallman has tried to do with the GPLv3 is to regulate hardware design trough the influence of GPL software. I don't like the hardware that doesn't allows me to run modified software in that computer either. But trying to fight that hardware using a software licenses is stupid. I think I'm free to think that and I think I'm free to think that the GPLv3 is a _stupid_ license because of that and I think I'm free to suggest that everybody should ignore it and stick to the GPLv2
And we should also mention the fact that the FSF is using the "GPL v2 or later" wording of the GPLv2 to abuse from the trust that MANY people has put in the FSF and do what THEY think should be done. You could argue that when people choose to use the GPLv2 with the "GPLv2 or later" clausule they gave permission to the FSF to create new licenses, but IMO Stallman and the FSF are using that power to impose their POV.
I mean, are all the users that included that clausule of the GPLv2 happy with the GPLv3? Clearly not. For them, the FSF is dishonoring the trust they put in it. They got their software licensed under a conditions they never would license their software.
The GPLv3 should have never been released as a new version of the GPL, it should have been a completely _different_ license that people could choose to use. We would not have so many problems if the FSF had done this - people who likes the GPLv3 would use the GPLv3, people who likes the GPLv2 would use the GPLv2, people who wants to relicense their software would relicense it.
Edited 2007-09-12 11:20
Member since:
2005-12-15
I think he's talking about it in the metaphorical sense. I tend to agree with him.
I find Linus' perspective more balanced and realistic. I find Stallman's perspective to be more idealogical. To my way of thinking, suggesting that by "following" Linus you'll loose your freedom is by and large an exaggeration muddled with hype.
Keep in mind though these two are known to periodically take swipes at each other, so is any of this really new?