Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3
diegocgteleline.es writes "A group of 29 Linux kernel developers have recently come together and produced a position statement on GPLv3 (PDF, txt) explaining why, essentially, they don't like it. 'The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current license proposal ... we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanization of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely'. They've also run a GPLv3 poll."
I should clarify that this is for the position statement, not the poll.
Frankly, I think the FSF should go ahead without them. Linux kernel developers have always been shortsighted when it comes to freedom. Those of us who care will probably fork Linux (which *can* be done, dispite Linus' incorrect claims to the contrary). It's going to have to be done sooner or later anyway.
http://outcampaign.org/
It is rather simple. RMS has decided too turn the GPL and the FSF into a political machine to shape the way he views software should be used and distributed. He is very much against DRM and Software Patents, which is fairly well documented by his actions. I do not like what the MPAA and RIAA are attempting to do with DRM nor do I like software patents; however, adding specific clauses to the GPL to make these things essentially violate the GPL is insane.
Let me attempt to liken this to other organizations that had good intentions at one time or another. Take Greenpeace for example. Here is a group whose original ideology was somewhat new at the time and who developed a large following. The problem is, the group decided to become more political and began to lose focus of what they were doing. Some of the key members and founders even left because of this. It became a means for certain people to advance their own perceived political aspirations. Their tactics became less of prevention and started down this path of awareness, a path that is usually more fiction than fact. (Every group enjoys using sensationalism. Half of what PETA tells you is wrong with meat isn't true, and neither is half of what GP says is wrong when it comes to certain environmental issues.)
Now, we have RMS doing much of the same thing with the GPL and open source. He is convinced these items are evil and will use a variety of methods in an attempt to prove this. Some of the methods have even begun to reach that point where they are literally "over the top." You can mark me a troll if you want, but I seriously think this is a true point that people need to consider. While countering software patents and DRM are good things, I do not believe a software license that would be used by tons of open source products is the place to fight this battle.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I don't care if you agree with it or not. "preserving freedom" by removing freedom is hypocritical of the FSF. What freedom goes next?
How about the freedom to distribute binaries without providing source code?
Where does the FSF get off removing my freedom to make binary-only proprietary distributions? That's not "preserving freedom" its just being hypocritical.