Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus on GPL3 In Forbes

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the rehashing-bad-blood dept.

musicon writes "In an interview via e-mail with Forbes, Torvalds discusses GPLv3, digital rights management and sharks with laser beams. From the article: 'I'm sure changes will be made [to GPLv3]. The fact that the FSF and I have some fundamentally different views of what the GPLv2 was all about makes me worry that we won't find a good agreement on the next version.'"

5 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Couple of things here... by Kaellenn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First off, please forgive my ignorance, but is it really *that* important for Linus to decide to move Linux from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Just because version 3 of the license becomes available does not automatically invalidate the version 2 license does it? Why is this such a hot button issue?

    For the most part, I completely agree with Torvalds on his points--and I can't say I'm at all surprised to see Stallman and the FSF take this direction with version 3. Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.

    Now I'm not trying to bash Stallman or the FSF, they have made some wonderful contributions to the community. But let's call a spade a spade here and look at what GPLv3 is about: attempting to hide attempts to restrict developers under the guise of being an update to the world's most popular open source license. For all of the FSF's talk against bad copyright policy and software restrictions, this license introduces their own set as if to say, "we don't like their way; so you should definitely do it our way instead."

    Too much politics and agenda and not enough open source development.

    1. Re:Couple of things here... by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is it even possible to relicense Linux under GPLv3?

      Did Linus get copyright assignments from every contributor? If not, then there's no way it can ever be really GPLv3, not legally.

      Even if the contributors put the "or later" clause, that would still give end users the option for using Version 2.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  2. GNU/Linux kernel? by amightywind · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if Linus even has the real authority to unilaterly switch to an alternative license. I don't think so. By his own admission he is not a deep thinker about the philosophical (he says polical) part of the job. Many of his colleagues are. Any change would have to be accepted by the core kernel developers. If not a fork is all but inevitable (GNU/Linux anyone?). My guess is he will talk like this from time to time but will be under pressure to maintain the status quo.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  3. I agree with RMS on patents but disagree on DRM by FlorianMueller · · Score: 4, Interesting
    For a long time it seemed to me that a distinction between Free Software and Open Source was hair-splitting: the key open source programs were Free Software at the same time. Now there are two trends that suggest a distinction may be increasingly necssary:

    • Oracle et al. try to acquire open-source projects by buying up the companies behind them.
    • IBM and like-minded large players try to effectively control open source based on their huge patent portfolios. Companies like Nokia sometimes say it pretty directly that they believe patents enable them to potentially open-source some code while still retaining ownership.

    Looking at those disconcerting trends, I very much support the GPL v3's approach to software patents. But when it comes to DRM, I think the FSF goes too far and addresses an issue for philosophical reasons that isn't worth it. DRM is a lot more legitimate per se than software patents are. Categorically opposing DRM may be perceived as downright anti-commercial by a number of people, and it's a move that I fear will only hurt the FSF and the GPL without changing anything about the fact that DRM is here to stay.

  4. On the wrong side of the battle by RLiegh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Morally, Linus is on the wrong side of the DRM battle, since he supports it (and is willing to be used as a PR pawn by Forbes), however Pragmatically, he's on the right side of the battle, since DRM is ineveitable and perhaps by doing their bidding, the robber barons^W^W business world will allow him to continue living^w coding.

    Stallman may be right morally, but so was John The Baptist; and look at what happened to him.