Slashdot Mirror
Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites'
AlexGr writes "We've heard conflicting tales regarding Linus Torvalds' acceptance of GPLv3. InformationWeek reports on comments by Mr. Torvalds that would seem to decide the issue: 'Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites ... For Torvalds' part, it appears unlikely he'll ever adopt GPLv3 for the Linux kernel. He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3. "Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.'"
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
Go the rant Linus.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
This was in the comments on the article page: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223
That article can create some misunderstandings about what Torvalds actually said and meant. If you want to form your own opinion, read the email discussion thread (it is huge) at http://marc.info/?t=118136815500004&r=36&w=4 and Linus' posts e.g. at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118235728513045 &w=4 and http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118236278730043 &w=4 .
I think Linus' statements make much more sense in context.
For instance, several posters here have responded to "Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate 'morality' with 'legality'," by pointing out that all western legal systems represent morality in some way. However that is missing the point, and I think, not what Linus meant. Democratic systems compromise on a *common* idea of how morality should be represented by laws. This is entirely different from religious fanatics or totalitarian states where the moral ideas of an individual or small group is the only acceptable one. The point Linus is making here is that the GPLv3 is used as a vehicle to impose upon others the ideas of a few and regulate what Linus thinks should be a matter of choice.
I agree with Linus point of view: it might be wrong to trust in the choice of users. Maybe users will not do what I wish they would do - not buy DRM protected music etc. Maybe this will lead to a point where Linux needs a program that can play DRM protected media. But still, I think that taking that choice away from future Linux users would be the totalitarian way of trying to achieve things. Personally I would not want that. I hate DRM, software patents, vendor lock it, but as a *NIX user of more than a decade, I do not want Linux (and other open source software) to become the blunt weapon of a few fanatics instead of an inviting and competitive alternative.
Both are sincere in their beliefs. RMS is accused of being idealogical and hard to get along with, however it was perspective and tenacious that created free software and the GPL in the first place.
RMS is the original author of GPL, gcc, bash, glib, emacs and many other important tools. No "normal" person would have had the vision or determination to do what RMS has done. He originally intended to create the compiler, the runtime library, the editor (emacs) and to OS. Only a person that was a little bit "crazy" would have even attempted to do this. The Free software world and the "open source" world are greatly indebted to RMS, no matter how hard to get along with he is, or what people may think of him. The vary characteristics that some people dislike, are exactly the characteristics that made it possible for RMS to achieve what he achieved. Without RMS free software would be nowhere. The GPL was introduced from the start, as being with a certain idealogical intent, the intent of the GPLv3 is in the same spirit as this intent.
It may be this idealogical attitude, together with acceptance of a faulty academic idea called the microkernel, that caused RMS to fail in creating a workable kernel to work with his other software. The HURD is nowhere.
What is called GNU/Linux and sometimes just Linux, is a merger between Linus' kernel and RMS' free software, and much other software.
Linus attitude is pragmatic. He uses the GPL as a tool just has he uses gcc. He is a great programmer and kernel hacker. He had the wit to reject the academic idea of the Microkernel which if adopted could have killed Linux just has it did the Hurd. There is no better person to lead the Linux kernel project.
If the BSDI USL lawsuit had not delayed the BSD project there would have been no Linux. Linus would have joined one of the BSD projects as just another BSD hacker. One of the BSDs would have become the dominant free software OS.
I believe that if this had happened, Microsoft would have destroyed BSD's commercial chances using "embrace and extend". They would have created a BSD/Windows hybrid that would have duplicated BSD's API. This would have happened because BSD lacks the GPL's so called "viral clause" that prevents embrace and extend. The existence of this hybrid would have been used by Microsoft to prevent the suits from even considering a move to free software.
Linus lacks the vision that RMS has. This has caused him to make several blunders such as the Bitkeeper Debacle. However the discipline implicit in the GPLv2 will prevent him from making any fatal mistakes. Were Linus to attempt to go in any totally insane direction, his project will fork. He knows this vary well.
I have given several presentations to Austin Linux Group from this perspective.
Free software history
Lessons of Free Software History
Tanenbaum-Torvalds microkernel vs monolithic kernel Debate
You know what they say about assuming? The egcs guys decided from the start to only accept fsf-assigned contributions to allow re-merging with gcc in the future. Which eventually happened.
OG.
You can't just willy nilly make your own derivative GPL.
You could make up a whole new license, though, with similar principles. Close. From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGP
You CAN, just strip the required bits, add yours, and call it something new.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
I think it would be fairer to say the FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except remove the freedom of the users of that software. That is, it's not about the software license per se, but about what recipients of the software can do with it.
The anti-TiVo clause seems to be intended to make sure that if TiVo goes out of business (or drops support for a particular model of hardware and never releases software updates for it again), that end-users will be able to fix bugs, or add functionality that's perfectly viable on the hardware they've already bought. The Free Software Foundation cares exclusively about the users freedom, and completely disregards companies trying to make money out of Free software.
I think the underlying assumption is that if there's money to be made, people will find a way to make it -- regardless of the restrictions placed on them. Further, there's a belief (and a lot of evidence to support this belief, IMHO) that companies will place as many restrictions on their customers as they feel is needed to maximise profits. Therefore, it makes sense to safeguard the users freedom as much as possible.
Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. This however, is the logical extent of what RMS and people at the FSF are proposing with the adoption of GPLv3, forcing people to run their software on certain hardware.Nobody forced TiVo to use GPLv2'd software, and nobody will be forcing them to use GPLv3'd software, either. The body of Free software provides many benefits to companies such as TiVo, but it's not a free lunch -- and it's not intended to be a free lunch! Authors can choose what license to release their software under, and companies can choose not to use it if they don't feel they can profit from doing so. You can't benefit from the pool of Free software while simultaneously preventing your users from enjoying the freedoms Free software is supposed to give them. GPLv3 has clauses intended to close a loophole that allowed companies to do exactly that, in specific situations.