Why Torvalds is Sitting out the GPLv3 Process

lisah writes "Linus Torvalds has a lot of reasons for not wanting to participate in drafting the third version of the GNU General Public License (GPL): He doesn't like meetings, says committees don't make sense, has philosophical differences with the Free Software Foundation, and seems to be generally distrustful of the whole drafting process. Though Torvalds prefers the GPLv2, he says if others prefer the GPLv3, they ought to support it because 'it's not like it kills and eats small children for breakfast, and must never be allowed.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

Comments

He needs a Time Machine

[neonprimetime]

FTFA...

For Torvalds, the controversy over the different versions of the GPL is ultimately very simple: If "I can just go back to 1992, when I relicensed Linux under the GPLv2, and ask myself: If I had the choice of licenses back then that I have today (including the GPL3 draft), which one would I have chosen? And the answer simply isn't the GPLv3. It might have been the Open Software License, though. But, most likely, it would still be the GPLv2."

"And Ode to GPLv2"

[diegocgteleline.es]

For those that didn't see it (because my submission to slashdot was rejected, between other reasons), An Ode to GPLv2:

"One of the reasons I didn't end up signing the GPLv3 position statement that James posted (and others had signed up for), was that a few weeks ago I had signed up for writing another kind of statement entirely: not so much about why I dislike the GPLv3, but why I think the GPLv2 is so great.

Rest of the post

Re:"And Ode to GPLv2"

[Chops]

Personally, Linus's attitude to the GPLv3 has never made a lick of sense to me. He (and the others on the LKML who drew up that position paper) seemed downright Republican in their determinedness to misrepresent the opposing point of view, their reliance on statements which, on examination, seem increasingly bizarre ("... the FSF's attempts at drafting and re-drafting these provisions have shown them to be a nasty minefield which keeps ensnaring innocent and beneficial uses of encryption and DRM technologies ..." [emph. mine]), and their use of loaded language ("pick and choose soup" is a great way of criticizing freedom of choice when no other logical objection can be raised :-).

That's why I believe that this story, and the post you link to above, represent the first few of what The Meaning of Liff defines as glenties. I'll reproduce the definition below:

GLENTIES (pl.n.)
Series of small steps by which someone who has made a serious tactical error in a conversion or argument moves from complete disagreement to wholehearted agreement.

Re:The GPL3 process is not closed

[oohshiny]

... and we won't know until we try.

However, the relative lack of success of BSD despite its greater maturity during the early years suggests that making it easy to lock up open systems on proprietary hardware is not a winning strategy. Take, for example, Solaris: it was derived from BSD, but it languished inside Sun for a couple of decades and Sun didn't make many meaningful contributions to BSD. The experience with other commercial users of BSD was similar.

Re:The GPL3 process is not closed

[SWroclawski]

Actually, it's now a decision the author can use or not use.

It's one of the possible restrictions that can be optionally added which applies to public use of the software requiring distribution of the modified source.

RMS has said in speeches that both arguments held weight for him and so he decided to leave it up to the software developer and leave the default behavior to the way things currently are.

Re:So what does Linus really want?

[Klivian]

Simply with BSD-licensed code you don't have to give your changes back, but with GPL v2 you have to Tivio or not. And that's the whole difference, simply getting the code back.

No, it's the pragmatic attitude of me.

[mrchaotica]

First of all, I'm not speaking for the FSF.

Second, I have no doubt that they're trying to accomodate everyone as much as possible. However, they're not about to do something completely contrary to their stated goal, which is to make software that's free for the user. Fundamentally, the GPL exists to serve the FSF's goals; therefore, no matter how touchy-feely you try to make the process, the bottom line is that it's going to be what the FSF wants.

And before you complain about this, think for a minute and you'll realize that it's the same for every human organization, from the US Government to the Linux kernel to Bob's Fine China and Firearm Emporium, Inc. Deal with it.

Re:it's not like he has a choice

[Abcd1234]

you can see how well BSD did with that.

Yeah, no kidding... I mean, there definitely aren't any successful BSD variants available and widely deployed. And there certainly aren't any other successful non-GPL projects out there. Yup, the GPL is definitely *the* only way to go if you want to make a successful open source project... assuming, that is, you're a single-minded zealot (or troll?).

Re:The GPL3 process is not closed

[slamb]

The history of open source is littered with BSD-based empty victories like this.

Is it? I'm not familiar with the SPICE landscape, but I am with PostgreSQL:

PostgreSQL, while an excellent product that I still use often, is stagnating while MySQL slowly surpasses it in every way.

Umm, what? How is PostgreSQL stagnating? It's a widely-used product with frequent releases, full-time contributors back to the open-source core, and several commercial support offerings. What do you mean by "MySQL slowly surpasses it in every way"? If you're talking about popularity, MySQL's always been more popular. If you're talking about something technical, well, I have absolutely no idea what it could be.

Re:The GPL3 process is not closed

[bogado]

The point is that if you're running in a public web site it is the closest you get to a distribution of a software that runs on the client side. If you get a GPL3 php script, change it to do a new bling and start your new blog service and do not cvontribute back to the original code you're being as bad as someone who get's the linux kernel change it a bit and create a new OS with it and keep it closed.

The point is that web application do not need to be distributed, so the GPL is quite useless to them, any unscrupled comercial sitecan get his hands in tones of GPL stuff and never donate a single line of code, because he is not distributing the altered code.

Re:their differences are simple

[cananian]

Linus himself rebutted your contention in his GrokLaw post:

This is not about "programmers vs users". That's a totally false dichotomy, exactly the same way it's a totally false dichotomy to make it about "DRM vs the good guys". That's not how "freedom" works (and, that's not how DRM works either. It can be used for good, it can be used for evil. It's just technology).

The thing is, "freedom" is not a thing that you can say "freedom for some people, not for others". You have to respect the people who do the work, and you absolutely have to respect their freedoms too. And you cannot and must not try to make it about some group vs another.

You're way too eager to throw away the rights of people who actually work on things. You're way too eager to say that people who worked on something for decades should just do what you want. Here's a hint: that's not freedom.

So whenever you say "freedom for group X", you're using a totally invalid argument. That's like saying that slavery was "freedom for the white people", and that I'm against freedoms, because I think your arguments are bad. Don't you see that? You can't willy-nilly try to limit the freedoms for one group versus another. That's not "freedom", that's just using a word that sounds good to make your argument for you.

So don't talk to me about "programmers vs users". That's a deeply flawed argument, and that's not how freedoms work. It's especially not how freedoms work with the GPL, since the two aren't even distinct groups. I'm a user too, and part of the whole point is that users now have the option of becoming doers.

Finally, there's a distinct logical fallacy in the argument that "users" should be protected. It's the fallacy of thinking that people who consume are equal to people who produce. And that's not true. People who produce are the one who get to decide how things are done, because they are the ones doing it. It's that simple.

This is your board, so you get to set the rules, right? If people complain that you're doing something wrong, you can tell them to make their own board, right?

That's right. That's how the world works. And it is how the world should work, because that's what motivates people to get off their lazy behinds and do something.

In other words, if you're just a user, and you don't like how you're treated, you have the choice of becoming something more. If you don't like Tivo, you can buy a regular PC, and put MythTV on it. You'll even get to use the Tivo code, thanks to the GPLv2 (not that you'd want to).