greggh wrote:"There's tons of examples of that from human history. The ruler is not just a king, he's a God, so disagreeing with him is immoral, but it's also illegal, and you can get your head cut off," Torvalds continued, in a posting dated June 20.
This is his ham handed attack at Stallman. I guess Linus never heard that the process of revising the draft for the GPLv3 was wide open for all to comment on and many revisions and compromises were made aa a result of that process. So once again, stupid, or worse, dishonest.
My sentiment exactly!
Seriously, has Linus been living under a rock or something? All he's been doing is cursing left and right about GPLv3 and the FSF, and neither he or his kernel buddies has participated in a process that I'm sure the FSF would gladly have let them be a part of. Heck, the FSF had IBM, Sun, HP and EVEN REPRESENTATIVES FROM APPLE (I checked the list, there was a couple of guys from f!cking Apple on there!!) on the discussion committees for GPLv3!
Let's see, IBM and HP both make proprietary UNIX OSes, Sun has now freed up large parts of Solaris, and done a huge amount of other contributions to free software, but still have a bunch of proprietary stuff going on. And people say the FSF aren't pragmatic, what do call this! Do you think RMS had all these guys be on the discussion committees because he wanted to! I seriously doubt the Linux kernel developers couldn't have been a part of this process as well.
I have been using GNU/Linux since June of 2004, and not once in this time frame have I heard, or heard of, Richard Stallman attack somebody like Linus did, I have heard RMS sound arrogant, and make some edgy jokes (Mostly to demonstrate a point of his), but never anything close to this.
I know of two hosts of a certain "Linux podcast" who also ought to just keep their mouth shut, and participate in the process instead of whining and moaning.
greggh wrote:Torvalds added that software developers that adopt GPLv3 "in the name of freedom, while you're at the same time trying to argue that I don't have the 'freedom' to make my own choice" are "hypocritical."
Just who the hell is saying that Linus doesn't have the right to make his own choice regarding GPLv3? Linus, you want to keep the kernel GPLv2, go right ahead, who's stopping you?
Here's another quote from Linus regarding the evils GPLv3...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1200
In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I’m their legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about “legality”, this is about “morality”. The GPLv3 doesn’t match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself.
For someone who I used to think was a pretty bright guy this is one of the dumbest analogies in comparing software providers attempting to control and restrict their customers/users to parents trying to restrict their kids, that I've ever seen. The GPLv3 does not hinder anyone's ability to make changes to the software to restrict users on their own computers, you just wouldn't be able to redistribute it afterward. If a company wanted to modify GPLv3 code to restrict their employees or even add DRM they would be free to do so for internal use on their computers. Is Linus's vision of the future of computing one that entails a world where users of software are treated like the children he talks about, and are restricted from using their own computers because the software providers think this is all they should be allowed to do? That's a great vision Linus has there. Again, he's stupid or deliberately disingenuous.
And just to add to that, GPLv3's anti-Tivoization provision only covers devices that would directly affect average citizens like your or me (Like media centers or doorknobs), it goes like this:
A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, “normally used” refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
To begin with, none of this affects internal usage in companies, even if this anti-Tivoization provision was overall, and not just "User Products", no company would be forbidden to lock their corporate workstations down.
Chess wrote:It has always seemed to me that Linus is fundamentally not on the same page as the FSF. I have read many times that there is some real angst between him and RMS, and this GPLv3 has just exacerbated those sore spots.
I recently read a thread on the LKML, and Linus tried to argue that the purpose of GPLv2 had changed since it was written. What is he smoking! The purpose of GPLv2 is described directly in it's preamble, and it's been like that for freaking 16 years!!!
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
Chess wrote:I also think it's interesting that some people get upset when the FSF uses strong language but Linus calling people "hypocrites" and the equivalent of "religious fanatics" is OK. Go figure.
And even that, I havn't heard the FSF use strong language to deliberately offend somebody. This reminds of when a younger sister mistreats their older siblings and then the parents just giggle and say "Come on you're the oldest!", what bullsh!t man!
Chess wrote:Regardless, it is quite unfortunate that the GPLv3 has caused so much tension and "taking sides" within the community.
Well, I partly thank Linus for that, his outbursts on mailinglists and Groklaw has done nothing but spread FUD and raise tensions.
Laws have always been society's attempt to clearly codify the morality that prevails at that point in time.
