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 read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-02
The utopian position isn't a close analogy in this case. The only authoritarian aspect when it comes to Free software is the GPL license itself and of course the copyright law on which it rests. Since everything else is voluntary there is no problem.
In a theoretical future where 99% of source code is GPL'd it would function as a coercive force requiring new developments to be GPL'd. At that point I would strongly back a BSD license, as strongly as I now back GPL, as the next logical step.
Member since:2005-11-05
sorpigal wrote: The utopian position isn't a close analogy in this case. The only authoritarian aspect when it comes to Free software is the GPL license itself and of course the copyright law on which it rests. Since everything else is voluntary there is no problem.
Quite the reverse. If you look at what RMS and LT have said over the past few years, I think my suggestion stands up extremely well. I'm not talking about the GPL or a specific statement but about where the two are coming from, the beliefs that underpin their ideas, the way they look at the world. And if you think that authoritarianism isn't involved, then look at that first, original draft of GPL3 (especially the preamble).
Member since:
2005-11-05
Arguments about whether Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds hold the better opinion aren't capable of resolution because both men represent completely different philosophical traditions.
Linus T's position seem to be that of classic liberalism. You propose a system with the fewest restrictions and the widest notions of tolerance. You don't attempt to better human nature but leave people to get on with their lives.
Richard S's position seems to be more utopian. You propose that human nature can indeed be improved if only people are freed from their chains - both those imposed by others (such as capitalist enterprises) and from the chains of "false conscousness". You therefore propose to enact such laws as are necessary to bring this desirable end to fruition.
Unfortunately there is a nasty sting in the tail of a utopian position. As a system, it cannot possibly work without rather drastic authoritarian measures since you would need actively to prevent anyone from owning anything in circumstances where such ownership might impede others from doing what they wanted.
The liberal position isn't all good news either. It sees human nature as fallible and fallen, meaning that shitty things will still be done by shitty people. All you can try to do is limit their activities and the fall out.
So which one? You decide. As for me, well the Jacobins didn't turn out to be very nice guys, or even very competent ones.