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.'"

Comments

Fork?

[dn15]

If Linus doesn't like where the GPL is going, he could make his own fork...

Really, I say this mostly for the purpose of humor, but it's true. If there's enough objection to GPLv3 maybe someone will introduce an alternate version based on GPLv2 that allows it to be updated in the future but without the conditions present in v3.

Re:Fork?

[OriginalArlen]

Exactly. Some people say the GPL is evil and viral. This is because they either do not understand it properly, or because they disagree with it. If you are in avour of free software, you can go the GPL route or the BSD route. You writes your code and takes your choice... the GPL is one of the most elegant hacks ever, and having been involved in some legal shenangans on the topic, I can honestly say I've never known anything else that can ruin a lawyer's day quite so effectively. It's a fucking work of art.

Pardon my language, it's late and I had a long week... (bloody Belgians!!... don't ask.)

Re:Fork?

[DaveAtFraud]

There are some folks who take that position but they are generally *NOT* GPL proponents. Copyright is what gives the GPL teeth. GPLed code is freely available but it can only be modified and redistributed under the terms of the GPL. Why? Because it's copyrighted. Only agreeing to the terms of the GPL gives someone the right to modify and redistribute the code. Remove copyrights and anyone (Microsoft, SCO, TiVo, etc.) can do whatever they like with Linux.

That's where the whole TiVo thing comes in. Can someone create hardware that restricts the modifications an end user can make to GPLed code? The TiVo source code is freely available as per the GPL. A TiVo user can download it, modify it and re-distribute it but there's one small glitch: the modified code won't run on a TiVo machine. The machine enforces some sort of checksum to make sure that only unmodofoed code can run.

Abolish copyrights and my guess is all the big software publishers will just adopt a TiVo-like solution that ensures only legitimate copies of their product will run. That is, you can only buy a Microsoft computer that will only run Microsoft products (kind of the way game consoles work now). Worse, the same companies can cherry pick any open source code they want since there is no copyright protection. Finally, chances are that most open source developers won't like suporting the Microsofts of the world and will go do something else. Sounds like a *REALLY BAD IDEA* to me.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:duh

[Chibi Merrow]

I wonder if he used vi or emacs to to write that.... /me ducks

I'm torn between being so happy that someone finally understood and so depressed that it took so many replies and crazy moderations before that happened...

I can't claim to be an old timer and firsthand familiar with these things, but it seems to me so many young GNU adherents don't understand how much being a hacker already approaches a religion (especially in the negative aspects of organized religion) without someone PURPOSELY trying to espouse religious philosophy. We already have enough heresies, inquisitions, and crusades amongst people who are just trying to get work done or do research... When you start ordaining prophets and messiahs, you're asking for trouble.

Then again half the people reading what I'm writing are probably equating the word "hacker" with some black hat stealing their credit card numbers and defacing websites...