GPLv3 - A Primer on Open Warfare in Open Source

savio13 writes "A BusinessWeek article about the GPLv3 starts to shed some light on where things are, and what the hold up is in getting the newest version out. They discuss the Stallman vs. Torvalds conflict, issues with DRM, the goal of 'one-stop licensing', and the ever-more-likely possibility that the newest version of the GPL just isn't relevant." From the article: "The impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software. And the resulting rifts were apparent at last week's LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco. On one side is Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too. Companies will just vote with their feet."

Comments

Re:I tend to go with the Linus Camp.

[Himring]

The great unwashed could care less about the GPL -- any version -- and do not even know it exists. People just want things to work. Closed-source works, open-source works, it all works, but, mostly, it's closed-source. It's what people use everyday to do this and that and (to quote RUP) they don't even think about it!!!

We run a 5000 node shop, spread across the country. After paying for the MS tax we can write anything we need in-house and/or pay contractors to do it well within budget. If you start talking open source, gpl, freedom, blah, blah. MGT will, at best, look at you blinking and at work take you out of business-decision meetings.

Paying a bit of corporate cash for closed-source is acceptible. I'm not arguing for closed-source mind you. I am pointing out the fact that this stuff only exists in the nether regions of geekdom. Stallman is unknown and no one simply really cares.

If linux/the gpl/open source/free software is to ever take off it will not be the way it's been handled and done up until now....

Really, I'm being honest here. Plz think hard before modding me down, and then mod me down if you will....

Re:I tend to go with the Linus Camp.

[Aladrin]

And if the GPL is about 'Freedom' then why does it restrict me more than the BSD license?

The answer is: It's not. It's about making everyone believe in his Communist propaganda. (Not using that as a curse word, it accurately describes the GPL. 'Everyone is equal and we will force you to be equal. To use our software, you must admit that equality and release your own goods that force others to admit that equality.')

The LGPL is less evil... Interesting how that works. Replace 'GPL' with 'Evil' and you get Lesser Evil. Hmm. It at least allows others to use the software in theirs without virally infecting its license.

BSD is what I chose recently when I decided to start my first open source project. The pack-rat programmer in me keeps screaming 'Mine mine! They can't use it, it's MINE!' but then I stop and release it a bit. I'm going to give it away for free anyhow. I am simply going to get it to the point that I"m happy with it, then release it under the BSD license. If someone decides they can make it better, so be it! I"ll still have my code 'untainted' by their thoughts and ideas, and I'll (probably) have theirs, too. I don't feel the need to force them to release it under the same license. (I would prefer it, but I don't require it.) And if someone else thinks they can do better yet, they'll always at least have my code to fall back on.

There's been MANY projects I've looked at and decided not to use because they were GPL and I was afraid they'd infect my work. (Through a technicality or something I didn't understand in that crazy license.)

Now the GPL v3 is even worse. They are trying to restrict what hardware I can use the software on. Don't we scream at Microsoft for that kind of thing?

I'm actually kind of glad v3 exists. It made me take another look at the GPL v2 and see how restrictive it is. Last year, for the same project, I might have chosen that license.

Re:Extremism leads to nothing

[mustafap]

I think if Richard had children and the demands of feeding and housing a family he might have somewhat different views. I'm certainly far less left leaning that when I was in academia.

About bloody time

[petrus4]

Linus should have thrown down the gauntlet with Stallman a long time ago, IMHO. As I've been saying for a couple of years now, Stallman is an albatross around Linux's neck that is in urgent need of removal.

Both Stallman and his cult need to be rendered entirely irrelevant. There was a time when he actually *did* contribute...but that time has long passed. These days all he does is cause division and start needless arguments...and said arguments are usually about how much of the spotlight he should be able to hog. As anyone who has been paying attention knows, adulation and control are all Stallman really cares about. That more than perhaps anything else is what bothers me about him...he tries to make out that he is motivated by elevated ideals, when it's been obvious all along that he's simply a megalomaniacal, base narcissist.

There's nothing elevated or noble about that at all...it's deeply ugly.

Re:What a stupid, stupid test.

[just_another_sean]

I have karma to burn... You're an asshole.

It wasn't meant to be a scientific study of whose copyrighting what as who and releasing under what license these days. As your highly opinionated, "I'm a developer but I'm not going to say what I develop" post was short on details and long on subjective bullshit, mine was meant to express the opinion of someone who disagrees with you. At least I tried to show an example* instead of just spouting off the latest "commie, hippy, pinkos are bad for business" rant.

I do hope, for your sake, that your future development team mates do not find your posting. It clearly highlights your complete lack of understanding when it comes to Free Software.

So *who* do you work for, SCO or Microsoft?

*granted it was a flawed analysis

Posted by someone who doesn't need to hide behind AC to sell his astroturfing opinions.