Tech Writers Spreading FUD About GPLv3

Tookis writes "Tech writers are spreading FUD about GPLv3 because they fear its take up will slow the adoption of Linux, according to this open source writer. "A large number of tech writers — I wouldn't call them journalists and sully my own profession — are fearful that the license will slow adoption of Linux in the workplace. And that would lead to a lessening of their own importance and influence."" So by posting this, am I spreading fud about spreading fud? I think I broke my brain.

Comments

Like the InformationWeek sham?

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

InformationWeek published an old mail claiming that it was "latest" post-GPLv3 news.

Get off my lawn

[hcdejong]

A large number of tech writers -- I wouldn't call them journalists and sully my own profession

But sullying mine isn't a problem, huh? Technical writer == someone who writes technical documentation, e.g. product manuals. Technical writer != FUD-spreading blogger.

--
hcdejong
(technical writer)

Inaccuracy awards: Informationweek wins again!

[Rmorph]

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/ 2007/07/open_source_is_1.html

In support of TFA: the above Iweek story really takes the cake for "most clueless" author on the subject of the GPL. One can take it as evidence that the GPL3 has become such a buzzword in the community that tech writers feel forced to comment even before they have even the slightest clue what the fuss is all about.

PJ over at groklaw politely stomped the author into the ground as one can see here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200707131 92403106
Whle always a fan, I admire her tact here: she did it a lot less painfully than some in comments section of the original article ;-)

Print Version, incoherency

[Animaether]

Another '2-page' article (you're welcome for the ad revenue, mate)

So here's the print version
http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_con tent&task=view&id=13525&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1090

I'm not sure what "you'll won't" is supposed to mean.. in "You'll won't have much success in convincing them - play has to go in one direction for them to move forward". Must be Aussie. Then again, the article is incoherent overall.
I'm not entirely sure what the article is about;

is it about the misunderstandings of the GPLv3?
If so - then why doesn't it list and address these misunderstandings? He links to a talk by Moglen in the end and recommends listening to it - but doesn't say why beyond saying that Moglen is a demi-god and by jove you should listen to him.

is it about the purported FUD being spread by other 'tech authors'?
If so - then why doesn't it give examples of this FUD?

is it about the reasonings behind this purported FUD-spreading - namely that the tech authors feel that they would become less relevant if GPLv3 were to become a 'success' in that it would slow adoption of the GPLv3 (huh?) ?
if so - then maybe he could explain -why- he thinks those 'tech authors' are using these reasonings, and how they are flawed in them?

The whole article reads like a bad blog posting.

But goob job on Slashdot for making it front-page material.. must be that 'GPLv3' keyword.

Grow up!

[syousef]

FUD isn't slang for something you don't agree with. The article in question might be awful but the story on /. is even worse. It sounds like it was written by a 12 year old involved in a schoolyard scuffle. Any coherent counter argument would have been better than sounding like a goddamned whiny child. If you fight legitimately bad arguments so stupidly it makes your point of view, no matter how valid, sound childish. The person who submitted this story has done GPLv3 no favours.

For goodness sake people. Troll does not mean "I don't agree with him". "Flamebait" is only flamebait if it's written for no other reason than to upset people. FUD is only FUD if it was intended to spread unfounded Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Technical Writing

[athloi]

Technical writers, sometimes called "tech writers," write manuals and help systems and procedures to help make sense of technology. We are unrelated to "technology writers," who depending on which one you encounter, may be people who failed to fill out admission papers correctly at the asylum or intelligent commentators.

Re:Strange..

[Knuckles]

When you have one of the most influential people in Open Source refuse to accept the license

In case you mean this recent /. story: it was utterly wrong and a FUD attempt by InformationWeek. They basically repeated a months-old quote by Linus about an earlier draft as if it was new and still relevant.

Linus is in fact pretty ok with how GPLv3 turned out.

Re:It's Us or Them

[aerthling]

OK, I'll have one more go. :)

The GNU core utilities form a significant portion of the operating system. There are no real alternatives, and they're not optional, or required in only some systems as nVidia's drivers are (excepting embedded systems, perhaps) - every single Linux system needs them. Without them, a computer running Linux is useless, not just for your work-specific requirements, but for everything. Without them, the operating system wouldn't operate.

Re:I wouldn't worry about sullying your profession

[PCM2]

Where is the concern about sullying the reputation of real technical writers, of which I am one?

By "tech writers" he means technology writers, not technical writers.

I in fact use this term to describe myself. I don't call myself a journalist because I have friends who are journalists. These people spent tens of thousands of dollars to go to journalism school, then graduated and got themselves jobs making tens of thousands of dollars a year writing up real news about real things happening in their communities -- things that are important to real people -- and without so much as a "thank you." They do a job that's far more important than blabbering about the freakin iPhone. I don't envy them, but I respect them -- enough to allow them the privilege of keeping the term "journalist" for themselves.

That said, I read TFA and I would not call the author a journalist either, not by a long shot.

Here's one for starters: Any article that includes blanket generalizations such as "many tech writers are putting down the GPLv3" -- and then fails to give so much as a single example -- is just page filler. This guy is the purest example of a crap-hound tech writer with nothing to say. I have no idea how this made the homepage.