Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Explains Dislike For GPLv3
Joe Barr writes "Linus Torvalds explains in three recent posts why he doesn't care for the DRM restrictions in GPLv3, and he has never been one to hold back. From his commentary: 'I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.' NewsForge has the complete text of all three posts available." We discussed his initial reaction to GPL3 at the end of last month. NewsForge is a sister site to Slashdot.
"I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers."
Translation: "I feel that we do not have the muscle - as open source software developers - to force hardware manufactures to bow to our DRM demands. They'll just laugh at us."
It's communistic no matter what GPL version number is on the page.
Ask anyone from the former, in Soviet Russia, motherland, how communism created slackers (East Germany is a prime example), and empty shelves. What was there was a lot of crap, and that's what most GPL software is, crap.
If the come walking into my town to commit genocide, I will impose my morality on them by either (i) appealing to their rationality or (ii) using force.)
I'd be worried about the rationality, not the morality, of a person who views closed software as equivalent to genocide.
You are the type of person Linus was referring to when he said "We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God."
I agree that DRM and signed drivers are bad _IF_ the system prevents you from installing non-signed drivers. Your "it's mine" attitude is fine until you expect the 'original author' or manufacturer to bail you out when you fuck up. I was merely pointing out that giving someone who provides you with some sort of support in an official capacity, much like Redhat does with Linux, the ability to sign drivers is a good thing.
IMO, the lack of the notion of a 'product' with open source software is one of it's weaknesses. Not everyone can be bothered or is able to code and how do non-tech savvy users really know if Linux distro X hasn't messed with a manufacturers linux drivers and for what purpose?
Nothing I said nullifies the 'more eyes' principle or prevents the open source effort from doing good.