Linked by Linux Review on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:07 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source It's been a while since we caught up with Stallman. But a couple months ago we took a look around at what's happening with law, politics and technology and realized that he maybe perhaps his extremism and paranoia were warranted all along. So when we were contacted by an Iranian Linux publication and asked if we would like to publish an English translation of a recent interview they had done with Stallman, I thought that it was a particularly rich opportunity.
Thread beginning with comment 511250
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Re:
by Sodki on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
Sodki
Member since:
2005-11-10

However the GPLv3 is not compatible with lots of projects that aren't GPL and that is why Torvolds probably won't move to it ...


GPLv3 is actually compatible with more licenses than GPLv2. Linus won't move to it because he disagrees with the tivoization restriction.

I also remember reading that he might try to change the license if Sun released OpenSolaris under GPLv3 instead of CDDL, but of course Sun doesn't exist anymore.

GPL is quite a restrictive License if you are a developer.


Only if you don't want to abide by it's terms. Seriously, I think this point is moot. I recently had a discussion with a friend regarding this and thinking "this is why the GPL was created". BSD license already existed, and it was a free software license. But the spirit of the GPL, the spirit of copyleft, is much more than that. Fortunately, you have a choice.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Re:
by lucas_maximus on Tue 20th Mar 2012 19:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Re:"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Most places have a no "GPL policy" for a bloody good reason.

Edited 2012-03-20 19:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Re: - "most places"
by jabbotts on Tue 20th Mar 2012 19:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

to put the comment in perspective, what definition of "most places" are we using.. what is the sample size for organizations questioned about GPL produced tools used?

Reply Parent Score: 3

An interesting interview with Linus
by ndrw on Wed 21st Mar 2012 14:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Re:"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

and his (IMHO very sensible) take on tivoization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw58LZTuZjA

Reply Parent Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I think Torvalds shouldn't have been surprised by the views of the FSF. As a printer, also a device, was the reason that Stallman started his project:

"In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly-installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be free to modify the software they use."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Decline_of_MIT.27s_ha...

So is it surprising that the FSF feels strongly about being able to modify the software on devices you own.

With software you can have a license, with hardware you usually buy the product. It is yours, you own it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Re:
by Morgan on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 11:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Re:"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If I were to write a piece of software and wanted to put it out there for mass consumption, I would go with the BSD license every time. Why? Because in my own personal view, that license is much less restrictive than the GPL in any revision. For all the freedom the GPL grants, it also is very restrictive in that it forbids certain actions, benign though the intent behind it may be. That is the very antithesis of freedom in my personal view.

That said, I do respect what Stallman is trying to do with the GPL as his tool. Unfortunately, forcing someone to follow a restrictive set of rules so that the software itself can be "Free" is no different than using guns to promote peace. It has to be done, but it sucks all the same.

To put it another way, the GPL says "you MUST do this, this, this, and this so you are free to do everything else", and BSD simply says "you are free to do anything you want".*

*Yes, I realize the BSD license requires that a copy of the license and copyright notice are included with source and binary releases, but if that were not the case it wouldn't be a license at all. It would simply be license-free public domain. As the GPL also contains this clause, I feel the two instances cancel each other out for the purposes of this discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 1