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: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:2005-07-15
>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.
It always depends from which point you look at it. I'm 100% sure that everyone who has listened to RMS, GNU and the FSFs the last 20 years know their goals and values quite well and GPLv3 is a (the only) logical step after GPLv2 and the technical and legal changes throughout the last ~20 years.
Member since:2006-06-21
The whole point of v3 is to block loopholes in v2 that allow people (and companies) to make the software non-free. The whole point of both versions is to keep software free. GPLv2 has shortcomings and does not fulfill that purpose as well as it could. GPLv3 was created in order to address those shortcomings. Therefore, logically, anybody using GPLv2 because they like to keep software being free (as in freedom) should welcome v3.
If a developer would rather use v2 it means they don't mind those loopholes being used with their software. I don't know why someone would enjoy that, given they went with GPL and hopes for freedom in the first place. It's fair to say that most of the ones who would enjoy the loopholes in v2 to keep being available are various companies.
You are completely ignorant in the matter. The FSF cannot change the licensing for any package it doesn't own copyright for. They can't make anybody switch to GPLv3. The author of the package is the only one making the decision. You are completely misunderstanding that clause in the GPL and if you'd take a minute to read the FSF FAQ you'd stop being an ignoramus.
That's exactly how it is. GPLv3 is a distinct license and the choice rests with the package authors. Not FSF. FSF only made a license available and will use it for the GNU tools, because that's all they own copyright on. Everybody else can do what they please. There's no pressure to use GPLv3, unless you as an author feel that GPLv2 doesn't protect your software properly.
Edited 2007-09-12 12:32
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.