Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:15 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Linus Torvalds, father of the Linux kernel, has fleshed out his unhappiness with GPLv3 in three recent posts on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Torvalds previously stated that the kernel will remain under the licensing terms of GPLv2. Yesterday, Torvalds offered his opinion as to where the battle over DRM should take place.
Thread beginning with comment 92320
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What a nightmare
by ma_d on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 05:50 UTC in reply to "What a nightmare"
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

That was what the GPL originally said. That's what it said in version 2. And that's what it's saying again in version 3.

Shoot, RMS love for free software and hate for all things proprietary comes from bad experiences with copyrights and trade secrets.

The movement likes to call itself copyleft. And you're trying to say that the GPLv3 is bad because it makes it look like they're anti-copyright?

I think one thing Linus is putting into the license that I can't find is that DRM = illegal with the GPL3. As far as I can tell it says you can't put software into the GPL if it restricts people from using their copyrighted material in legal ways...
Maybe I'm missing something or reading wrong. But saying you can't use DRM to break fair use law has nothing to do with secure hardware and digitally signed packages. Besides that, every *good* digital signature system has an override (yes, if it doesn't have one, it's not good).

Neither side says do it our way or don't. They say follow or license or don't. Which, incidentally, you can't possibly have a third state in that situation ;) .

Stallman is quite unyielding in his ideology. That, plus the rationale he provides, is a pretty good sign that he's onto something.
And I also remind you that those who disagree with him, on good grounds, usually largely agree to the point where they use his license.

Quit giving Stallman a hard time. You wouldn't have the Linux you do today without him. He's an intelligent man who deserves some respect, he's not a politician who you throw insults at because you dislike the cut of his jib!
The only people who get called idiots for believing something are the ones who actually attest to a belief. The rest should respectfully disagree until they have the guts to stand in front of 10,000 people and give their beliefs.


And no, people will not run to Mac simply because the GPL3 proves unpopular. They just won't use the GPL3. Welcome to the beauty of free software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: What a nightmare
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 11:41 in reply to "RE: What a nightmare"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------Shoot, RMS love for free software and hate for all things proprietary comes from bad experiences with copyrights and trade secrets.-----------

His love/hate is precisely the problem.

Personally, I think alot of it is just greed on his part. Here's a guy who's software movement was started in 1983, but didn't get a whole lot of ground until linux in 1991.

Listen to the guy's words. Last year many companies came out and left their patents open for us OSS junkies to use, and here somes Stallman talking about how that isn't good enough.

Jeez man, have a little gratitude. It's not gonna hurt you.

He's not trying to compete. He's trying to ram his love/hate down everybody else's throats. That isn't the way the world works. Had he been making a better product all those years more users would've signed up.

It's all about productivity.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: What a nightmare
by ma_d on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:17 in reply to "RE[2]: What a nightmare"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Why would he have gratitude? He believe patents are a bad thing... When those companies said "ok use our patents" what happened was that people said "oh patents aren't so bad let's worry about something else."

It's a lot like the abortion debate. Say you're a pro-lifer and Congress says "we're gonna make abortions slightly harder to get." You say "but I think they're wrong and this compromise is just going to insure that no one listens to me anymore. They'll say I'm ingrateful, etc..."
Or, say you're against the DMCA. And then Congress says, "ok, the DMCA stands, but we're gonna tweak it to allow some fair use." What does that do to your position? It makes you look ingrateful. Here they were "listening" to you and you think it's not good enough. But you know full well it wasn't good enough. It was APPEASEMENT.


"He's not trying to compete. He's trying to ram his love/hate down everybody else's throats. That isn't the way the world works. Had he been making a better product all those years more users would've signed up."
He was, they did. Ever seen a Linux system packing bsd binutils? You won't, because the gnu utils are vastly easier to use and script.
How many people use gcc now that used to pay for Borland or VC++? I bet the only reason most people use VC++ anymore is for Visual Studio... The compiler just isn't much better than its free ($$) alternative.


It is not and never has been about productivity (and if you want to see productivity, I suggest you read his biography; he's a very productive worker). Productivity is fully negated when the law deams your production illegal to use as it was meant to be used.

Go ahead, produce nuclear weapons and try to sell them at a quick store and then tell me it's _all_ about productivity.

The world isn't so black and white. And people and government aren't half as practical as you are about these things.

Reply Parent Score: 2