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.'"
...because only a sith deals in absolutes!
No, the Catholics do too...
I'm calling the pope Darth Benedict from now on.
"Only through me can you achieve a power greater than any Jedi."
or how about
"To cheat death, is a power only one has achieved, but if we work together, I know we can discover the secret."
include $sig;
1;
You obviously don't go to church. If you go to a church where the preacher consistently puts forward a version of the faith that you disagree with, you go to another church. You don't hang around because, hey, you can sell a lot of cookies at the bake sale.
In any case, so long as we're in agreement that Linus doesn't believe in freedom or defending it, and is only using the GPL because it helps his project gain momentum, there's no need to argue about the little differences of our opinions is there?
How we know is more important than what we know.
BitKeeper was a bad choice.
That is proven by history.
No argument is possible.
Thank you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The preamble makes it pretty damn clear what the intention of the license is. Linus is just a freedom hater.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I hope one day that a bunch of kernel contributors get together and contribute their copyright to the FSF. Then Linus will probably suggest that the code is torn out of the kernel, and hopefully everyone will shout him down.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Linus' idea of freedom is that he should be free but he's not going to hold anyone responsible if they choose not to allow him to have his freedom. He's like "man, it's be sweet if there was source code for this" whereas RMS is like "you there who doesn't provide source code for this program, you are stopping me from being free, this is wrong."
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is all moot. In the end proprietary software will win because only a corporation can focus on a users's needs and wants, open source can only scratch whatever itch the particular developer at the time has.
Hence the crappy open source GUIs vs Mac OS X and even Microsoft Windows.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Brilliant, strong functional engineer, screws self with huge gaps of reason in other departments.
Original Mac. Great design, best in market, ahead of it's time. Closed to 3rd parties. Eventual Mac clone (Windows) hegemony.
iPhone. Great design, best in market, ahead of it's time. Closed to 3rd party apps.
Why isn't there anybody with brains/balls enough at Apple to point out the obvious writing on the wall?
Why is it that such brilliant engineering minds tend to complete blindness in other areas? Is it Asperger's syndrome or something?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Except that only BSD is free software, GPL isen't.
-H