Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Feb 2006 18:27 UTC
Linux It seems like Linus Torvalds cannot make up his mind about whether or not to use the GPL3 for the Linux kernel. After clearly rejecting the idea of using the GPL3 ('and I don't see that changing'), he now opens the option up again. "It's 'quite possible,' said Torvalds that the GPL 3 could be used, 'but on the other hand, there's a purely practical problem with any change of license when you have tens of major copyright holders and hundreds of people who have written some part and thousands who have submitted one-liners and small fixes. There are, after all, benefits to putting the kernel under the GPL 3,' Torvalds said."
Thread beginning with comment 94174
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Question
by morgoth on Thu 9th Feb 2006 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question"
Member since:

I disagree. As soon as Linux does what the corporations want, the rest of us lose control. The 2.6 series kernel has been very unstable, and in fact, still is. It has not stabilised like previous kernel trees. Why? Because we don't have an unstable branch. Why is that? Because Morton and Co. feel that the big corporations don't like that, and 2 or 3 years development in an unstable branch, whilst having a stable branch with bug fixes isn't suitable for the corporations.

2.6 isn't unstable enough to stop you from using it, but it's sure as hell less stable than previous kernels. Some might argue that previous versions of kernels were unstable, and that'd be true - but only to an extent. The 2.4 series was unstable from 2.4.0 to 2.4.4, started to stabilise, then they had a few VM problems and it became unstable again, and didn't stabilise till around 2.4.15 or so.

What did they do? They tested the shit out of stuff in the unstable branch, and a new VM, until they got it working, and working satisfactorily, and then introduced it into the stable kernel tree. Now, we're just unstable. The amount of bloat and bugs are growing in the Linux kernel. The number of exploits are growing as well. This is a direct result of having features, features and features.

I seem to remember Novell wanting to dictate the kernel tree development, and around a year or so ago saying that the Linux kernel was offering to much to us "normal users", and not enough for the business users. Their attitude was basically, stuff the normal users, we want this and this and this in the kernel, the normal users can wait for improvements whilst we get our shit in the kernel tree. I don't like that. And if you had any common sense, you'd dislike it as well.

You are correct in your statement that the Linux kernel shouldn't move to the GPL 3 because it'll piss off the businesses. Good. And good riddance to them as well. They don't like it because it hits out at DRM, it hits out at software patents. It hits out at abusing GPL'd software. I'm all for the GPL v3.


Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by gplCop318 on Thu 9th Feb 2006 12:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
gplCop318 Member since:

Well said...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by MightyPenguin on Thu 9th Feb 2006 16:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
MightyPenguin Member since:

Nice try, pinning the 2.6 development method on Andrew when this really is Linus's baby. No one is forcing Linus to deveop 2.6 this way. You just don't have the stomach to go after Linus himself. I understand you've watched Office Space and feel a little animosity towards corporations, but I think it's misplaced in this debate.

First off, yeah 2.6 has been a little too unstable. It's only had the 2 week merge, 6 week stabilize cycle for all of 2-3 releases. Hardy enough time for things to settle down that much. Will it have more bugs? Maybe. You can talk about shoulds and woulds, but I want to see documentation for all these amazingly bad exploits that 2.6 is drowning in.

Let me guess you're a gnome user aren't you? "This is a direct result of having features, features, features." LOL

Through 2.4 and into 2.6 a LOT of developers (and not just evil corporate ones you want to murder for trying to feed their families) were very impatient with waiting 2 years for the next unstable branch to open up. There were even at times a danger of forking Linux. Linus' new development model is a response to that. If you don't like not being able to upgrade to each and every latest kernel with impunity then tough. Stop whining and wait a couple weeks for reviews and for 2.6.x.y (with y>2) releases then. And stop doing hershey squirts in public forums.

Better yet, start using a BSD.

Edited 2006-02-09 16:18

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Question
by morgoth on Thu 9th Feb 2006 20:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Question"
morgoth Member since:

If you read other comments by me, you'll see I'm just as damning of Linus as well. I used to like Linus before he got owned by big business and it started influencing the way that Linux is developed.

For details of exploits go visit and do your own investigation. I'm not your whipping boy.

No, I don't use Gnome, haven't since 1.4. Can't stand it. I'm a KDE user. But I also like XFCE and Windowmaker. :-)

That's baloney about the developers. If they want to develop on the Linux kernel, they'll hang around. If not, get rid of them and let new blood code. There's plenty of people wanting to help with kernel code.

[melkor@melkor:~]$ uname -a
Linux melkor 2.6.11-ln.std #1 Sun Apr 10 18:27:05 PDT 2005 i686 GNU/Linux

See, I'm not using a later kernel ;) Tried 2.6.14, but can't get nvidia to work, probably a Debian based issue, and I'm too lazy to figure it out and fix it. Things should just work.

BSD? No thanks. Read my comments on BSD elsewhere on I heavily dislike the BSD license and philosophy.

Before you try to character assassinate me again, do some research :-)


Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by Wrawrat on Fri 10th Feb 2006 00:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
Wrawrat Member since:

Features are one of the reasons why the Linux kernel is compelling these days. Of course, lack of stability is a major drawback, but pre-2.4 kernels weren't exactly hailed for having a legendary stability.

If Linux was still developed at snail pace, there are chances that it wouldn't matter today... neither the FSF with their GNU project. The popularity of the GNU OS is mostly due to his inclusion in Linux distributions. Now, both projects wouldn't be dead without corporate interests, but they wouldn't be widely known outside geek circles. Since one of the goals of the FSF is to get rid of our dependance on proprietary software, I believe that making some compromises and making a symbiotic relationship with corporate interest is not a bad idea as long as the other side doesn't push too far.

I reject the idea of having corporate entities in control of the development (even less by a single one), yet rejecting any contribution from a friendly business just because of its status is ludicrous. That is discrimination. Correct me if I am wrong, but I sincerly doubt it's one of the FSF goals; if anything, it would be going against discrimination.

I respect your opinion and your ideology, but I must say I am rather a moderate. For me, software is a tool, not some way of life. If you are going to ditch Linux just because it doesn't use the GPLv3, I hope you will find happiness with the Hurd... OpenSolaris? I will believe the rumours when it will be done, not before.

Reply Parent Score: 1