Torvalds Critiques of GPLv3 and FSF Refuted

j00bar writes "After Linus Torvalds' impassioned critiques of the second draft of GPLv3 and the community process the FSF has organized, Newsforge's Bruce Byfield discovered in conversations with the members of the GPLv3 committees that the committee members disagree; they believe not only has the FSF been responsive to the committees' feedback but also that the second draft includes some modifications in response to Torvalds' earlier criticisms." NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

Comments

How much did M$ pay you to 'write' that?

[Travoltus]

And it's 'Gnu Public License', thank you very much.

nothing to see, move along

[maxpublic]

I don't really see the problem here. It's not as if any of the folks in question (Torvalds, FSF, EFF, whatever) have any sort of actual authority to force the adoption of any particular licensing scheme. They can recommend a licensing scheme until they turn blue in the face, but that's all that they can do and all they'll ever be able to do.

So what if one set of folks chant mantras over the greatness of v3, while another group do the same over v2? Neither group can enforce an agenda on anyone else, so if you don't prefer v3 or v2 (or vice versa) then fuck what the opposition thinks. Choose whatever license makes your little developer heart go pitter-patter and move along, doggie.

My guess here is that the very lack of real authority is what gets the fanatics panties in a twist. They can't *force* everyone around them to adopt v3 or v2, so they get royally pissed when others won't automatically adopt The One True and Right Way(TM) with cheerful abandon. If anything this should make the non-fanatics happy, as the situation provides *us* with the right to make that choice, rather than some bunch of arrogant fuckers who prides themselves over being our intellectual or moral 'superiors'.

Max