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 92362
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Here's what I mean
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Linus gets it"
halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

http://au.sys-con.com/read/34189.htm

-----------------Richard Stallman: The Free Software Movement *Is* Politics--------------

Heh, that's all you need to see.

Stallman has zero interest in making better software. He just wants to win some ideological fight, and for some odd reason thinks he can ram it and people will somehow be ok with that.

"I'm louder than you, so obviously I'm right." Sorry Richie, that doesn't work either.

What he's not realizing is that by making the better software, the people will come. He's gonna win this fight at the keyboard, not at the microphone. But he's not at his keyboard coding. So....................

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Here's what I mean
by jaylaa on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 12:49 in reply to "Here's what I mean"
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

Better software isn't the only reason for open source. What if the closed sourced model actually did produce better software, and everyone knew it. You're saying there would be no need for open source software?

What about voting machines? That code needs to be seen so the voting process is transparent. What about software that various governments use? No government wants to put the security of their country in a foreign company's hands. What about your right to know what's going on in your computer? These are all political issues. It's not just about better software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Here's what I mean
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 4th Feb 2006 03:25 in reply to "RE: Here's what I mean"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

---------What if the closed sourced model actually did produce better software, and everyone knew it.-----------

I for one wouldn't be here. And I know I'm not the only one. There are less people out there than you think who will make a choice that hurts them long term simply out of an ideological hissy fit, especially when it comes to something as "irrelevant" as computing.(computing is very relevant, but to use linux/FOSS simply to use linux/FOSS because it's open is sheer stupidity. Unless you're an uber-geek. then that's your thing, your hobby)

-------------You're saying there would be no need for open source software?-----------------

For the most part. One of the main reasons the OSS movement continues to gain steam is that there is little choice out there. And MS' software has stagnated because of it. MS' software has gone leaps and bounds in the past year because they are trying to stay ahead of the linux/OSS crowd. They're sweating bullets and it's not hard to see.

-----------What about voting machines?-----------

What about them? When I went to vote my machine didn't crash. Did yours? I hadn't heard any stories about that. They seemed efficient/speedy in their use, I was in, pressed my buttons, and left.

-------------What about software that various governments use?------------------

What about them? Governments can benefit from OSS software primarily because of cost, not anything else. But they're gonna keep on proprietary softwares for now because proprietary softwares still hold the edge in many areas.

----------What about your right to know what's going on in your computer?---------------

Who cares? As long as it gets the job done. That's why in most(if not all) of my previous posts.... they either specifically say the word "productivity" or elude to that concept.

I just want to get my work done. So do most other people.

I just want my computer to work as efficiently as possible for as long as possible. So do most other people.

How it's done is of little consequence. DRM being one of the few exceptions.

------------These are all political issues.------------

I know they are. And as long as you keep making the Linux/OSS debate about politics instead of a better product, you're gonna have a harder time gaining recruits. Those who are going to be interested in "the cause" are already here. If you want more software and photoshop and games and more devices to work with your shiny new linux box you need to show people how much more productive they can be with it.

Show them *WHY* linux is better, and how it can make their life better and you'll find all kinds of doors opening up to you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Here's what I mean
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 14:56 in reply to "Here's what I mean"
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> What he's not realizing is that by making the better software,
> the people will come.

Sure, people would use the software for a while, until everything runs on computers that are no longer under the control of the users themselves. One could help prevent this by writing good software that explicitly retains the freedom of the user. But for that you'd need such a license, which is exactly what RMS is trying to make.

So, exactly why don't you want him to create a license that anyone may use (freely) for the software that he/she creates?

If you find a better way of fixing this whole mess that the current laws are then be my guest. In the meantime governments around the world continue to give away their citizens' basic freedoms to corporations. Maybe you don't mind being stripped of your basic freedoms, but why shouldn't I be allowed to try to keep some of those freedoms of mine? At least the ones related to the software I write myself.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Here's what I mean
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 4th Feb 2006 03:32 in reply to "RE: Here's what I mean"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

--------Sure, people would use the software for a while, until everything runs on computers that are no longer under the control of the users themselves.-----------

You misunderestimate the marketplace as well as the consumer.

Explain to me what DeCSS is and how it came to be.

-----------One could help prevent this by writing good software that explicitly retains the freedom of the user. But for that you'd need such a license, which is exactly what RMS is trying to make.-------------

I don't entirely disagree, but RMS is going over the line. Besides, just as users have rights so do those who create. They have the right to OSS their software, but if they choose not to OSS their software than they shouldn't be demonized for it. Let's just keep making our software and show more and more people why we are right and why our product is better. That's it. By ramming it down throats as RMS would do you are not impressing anybody, you're pushing people away.

We have the better software, and here's why. Let me show you how awesome this thing called "linux" is.........

-------------So, exactly why don't you want him to create a license that anyone may use (freely) for the software that he/she creates?-------------

He can do it all he wants. He has that right. But when you listen to the guy speak, it's not hard to see that he wants to ram his beliefs down everybody else's throat. What is he a christian?

Since when does freedom include the freedom to shove (x ideal) down on unsuspecting victims?

Reply Parent Score: 1