I lost a lot of respect for Linus Torvalds.

[Wally Balljacker]

I think all in all, GPLv3 is an improvement over GPLv2. With GNU software moving to version 3, and potentially OpenSolaris (crosses fingers), I would hate to see Linux fall by the wayside because of Linus's personal vendetta against Stallman and the FSF.

If OpenSolaris and Linux both went GPLv3, that would allow code sharing among both communities, meaning ZFS on Linux, and improved hardware support in OpenSolaris. I think whatever issue Linus has with GPLv3 are far outweighed by the benefits.

[Chess]

@Judland - I know what you mean. I like your posts since you make me think about things.

When I draft contracts for my clients, we sometimes spend hours pouring over the slightest difference in wording. Sometimes a small change can be a big deal. And certainly what is most important is how words are perceived, not just what they mean on paper.

I know you were just using this particular sentence as an example, but I find this kind of study of words very interesting. I actually see the language in the v3 version of this sentence as a nice clarification. First, v3 clearly states you can charge something or you can charge nothing, whereas v2 only talks about charging something. v3 also uses the phrase "price" instead of "fee" which is a good change since in legal terms, fee connotes a financial exchange, while price does not. Price can include something than money, like time. I think it clarifies that this is not about money necessarily.

v3 also includes two examples of non-software things you can charge for: support and warranty, while v2 only had one example (warranty). Finally, the difference between "the physical act of transferring a copy" in v2 vs "for each copy that you convey," at least for me, is a distinction without a difference except for the fact that v3 uses one less word, and less words is always a good thing. Actually, with regards to this whole sentence I think it's nice how v3 conveyed more meaning in less words than the v2 version.

Ok, sorry to keep rambling here. I actually find this sort of academic discussion interesting, but I guess that's the lawyer in me. I'll shut up now.

Edit: I forgot to say that despite all of this interesting discussion, from a personal standpoint, I am actually finding myself liking the BSD license more and more. Here is an interesting post along these lines:

http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/arc ... ense-17427

[Judland]

Edit: I forgot to say that despite all of this interesting discussion, from a personal standpoint, I am actually finding myself liking the BSD license more and more.

A while back (in a thread a long time ago) I commented about how the BSD license seemed more "free" to me than the GPL.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this as well, Chess. I can see your point on the example I brought up. Although, I would have kept "... for the physical act of transferring a copy..."

[Judland]

Come to think of it, if you wanted to clean that sentence up even more, you could drop the "or no price" altogether, as "You may charge any price" also accounts for a price of zero (or no price).

[Wally Balljacker]

Edit: I forgot to say that despite all of this interesting discussion, from a personal standpoint, I am actually finding myself liking the BSD license more and more.

A while back (in a thread a long time ago) I commented about how the BSD license seemed more "free" to me than the GPL.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this as well, Chess. I can see your point on the example I brought up.

The BSD licenses are more permissive than GPL, and in many ways are more free, but I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing. Linux never would have gotten anywhere without the protective nature of the GPL, and in many ways the lax licensing FreeBSD uses has been detrimental to them. Apple and Microsoft (among many other companies) have essentially cherry-picked the best features of FreeBSD and used them for their own proprietary, and commerical gains.

I guess we can argue all we want about the "freeness" of the licenses, but ultimately, GPL has proven to be a success for Linux and the Open Source community, while the various BSD's have been raped and pillaged for code ever since their creation, leaving them in a distant 2nd place in terms of both market share, and features.

[Vogateer]

I felt like I should stick up for Linus, particularly with the article seemingly intent on stirring up angry sentiment. Is there really a serious feud between Linus and RMS? I mean, I remember reading that heated exchange between Torvalds and Tanenbaum, and Torvalds certainly didn't hold any punches there, but he still respects Tanenbaum and doesn't hold any animosity towards him. I don't know about any history between Linus and RMS, though Linus just doesn't seem like the kind of guy who really cares or holds a grudge. It sounds to me like Linus simply doesn't agree with the intent of the GPLv3, and very simply isn't using it for that reason alone.

Despite sticking up for Linus, I do feel like the GPLv3 is a fine license. I've been giving it some thought, and even though I didn't see Tivo really doing anything evil or malicious, I still dislike the control they exercise over the hardware while using Linux. In fact, I think if they just sold their boxes at a reasonable price instead of selling them at a loss to get subscription fees, they wouldn't have to worry about controlling the box. (I'm assuming here that if they didn't exert such control a lot of us linux-lovers might buy the box just for the hardware without paying a subscription, making for a loss of money for Tivo.) It's particularly troubling to think of other computer manufacturers using similar methods to control the software on their machines as well, so even if I don't think Tivo had any malicious intent, I do think they set a precedent that's worrisome.

[snarkout]

That's what freedom is all about, in my opinion.

You have GOT to be kidding. Freedom is all about falling on your sword and saber rattling. At the same time, even! It's all about accusing other people of various crimes against the state, such as "hating freedom" or using software that contains un-"free" bits. It's all about vitriol, all about 1337er-than-thou, and it's damn well more important than actual freedom, as in the right to live w/o oppression. Get it straight, dude.

[greggh]

Unlike the BSD license, the main goal of the GPL is not to give complete freedom to each user, but rather it's goal is to "preserve" the essential freedoms for "all" users. In order to preserve freedom for "everyone" the GPL actually needs to be more restrictive and in some sense less free.

[Judland]

That's what freedom is all about, in my opinion.

You have GOT to be kidding. Freedom is all about falling on your sword and saber rattling. At the same time, even! It's all about accusing other people of various crimes against the state, such as "hating freedom" or using software that contains un-"free" bits. It's all about vitriol, all about 1337er-than-thou, and it's damn well more important than actual freedom, as in the right to live w/o oppression. Get it straight, dude.

What, freedom isn't about being able to choose your own path? Live your life to the standards you want to set for yourself and do the things you want to do?

Okay.....

[snarkout]

That's what freedom is all about, in my opinion.

You have GOT to be kidding. Freedom is all about falling on your sword and saber rattling. At the same time, even! It's all about accusing other people of various crimes against the state, such as "hating freedom" or using software that contains un-"free" bits. It's all about vitriol, all about 1337er-than-thou, and it's damn well more important than actual freedom, as in the right to live w/o oppression. Get it straight, dude.

What, freedom isn't about being able to choose your own path? Live your life to the standards you want to set for yourself and do the things you want to do?

Okay.....

Um, maybe I should have included the sarcasm tags in that post.

[foss_guy]

One issue brought up is hypocrisy. While I will not go so far as to attack anyone, I do agree that it is hypocritical to restrict freedom in the name of freedom. I think the term Free Software is misleading; liber-software is a bit better. Free Software implies freedom which is more accurately defined by the BSD license. It's a touchy issue that can be confusing.

Well, I don't think so, the GPL's logic isn't faulty in this regard.

You can't take restricting or causing harm to others' freedom as your freedom, you are not free to kidnap someone in a free society. It's labelled as a free society because it forbids illegal freedom, the same applies to the GPL, which adheres to the principle that proprietary software is immoral.

Dude, there is no such thing as 'absolute freedom', which is a conflicting philosophy and only exists in dreams.