Slashdot Mirror
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.
Sometimes, I wonder if people even know what GPLv3 is. How is it possible for this license to slow adoption of GNU/Linux in any way possible?
True.
That doesn't mean that his arguments don't have merit. It certainly doesn't, but just because these 'tech bloggers' are the other side of the equation and they have a pay check at stake doesn't mean that their argument isn't equally as valid--does it?
I've never even heard the arguments and underpinnings against the GPLv3 concerning the adoption of Linux! Perhaps you should include both sides of the discussion in your article if you wish for me to consider you a journalist.
If I ever saw FUD of FUD, this is it.
My work here is dung.
...I don't agree with the new clauses in GPLv3 as opposed to GPLv2 and although my current licenses contain the "or higher" clause, I am going to be removing that in the coming weeks and leaving the code at GPLv2 only.
I'm paricularly against the "Tivoization" clause and cannot for the life of me see what benefits it gives to the copyright holder or user of the code. All it seems to do as far as I can see is take away the freedom to use my code in the way I originally granted.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
Didn't you know? "Somebody said something I don't like" is the same as "FUD", or if you're on Slashdot "Troll". Talking about your own experiences, that's "Flamebait" these days.
I listened to a talk RMS gave about the GPLv3. It was long and painful. Basically he added clause after clause to take care of cases that he had not thought of before (eg Tivo). But to me it makes it far less elegant and basically impossible to understand by the masses. I think it would be better to keep GPLv2 which can be understood. Sure some Tivo-ish companies may abuse the spirit of it be its better to keep it simple. In RMS's talk he said they changed some wording to make it more international and defined all the terms better. I am OK with that. So lets move to a GPLv2.1 instead of 3.
One is simply causing confusion. Previously, the GPL seemed to universally mean GPLv2. It was well understood what it meant for something to be GPL'd. People grasped the concept and what rights and restrictions were involved, and thus it was fairly easy to make a informed choice of if it was acceptable in a given situation or not. Now things are confusing. Is it old GPL or new GPL? How does this affect things? This confuses non tech savvy managers, make lawyers scared, and makes it harder for tech people to sell to their bosses.
Another is that the GPLv3 IS more restrictive. I appreciate that the reason for it is to try and give the public more freedom, however for companies making use of it, its more restrictive. It is possible that those companies will find it unacceptable and thus dump Linux. Don't think they can't do it either, Linksys dumped Linux for vxWorks on its routers (allegedly for memory reasons). There are other options out there, and those options will get used if companies decide, rightly or wrongly, that the license on Linux makes it unusable for them.
Yet another would be by creating a perceived problem with OSS. We've seen a real giant (Linus) come out and blast the GPLv3. While that doesn't mean anything ultimately, it can to companies. Now there's concern about a coming divide and what could happen. The "But you've got the code!" argument doesn't hold any water for places that don't have many/any programmers. They want a product that works and is supported. Now while this isn't actually likely to change that, it can create concern that it will.
Mostly it is just a perception thing. Confusion and disagreements are never good, especially if you are the little guy. It makes PHB types nervous and they are the ones who ultimately make the decisions. You can scream till you are blue in the face that it shouldn't be like that, but that is how it is and we have to deal with that reality.
I don't call my laptop OS Microsoft/Adobe/Sun/Macromedia/Mozilla/Blizzard/In tuit/Windows; it's just Windows. I don't call my home system GNU/Linux; it's just Linux.
I think it is less outrage and more people see it as really petty and annoying to push "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux".
In addition to sounding childish, people generally don't like someone trying to explicitly control their use of language. Actually, that last bit does include a little outrage. People really don't like being told which word to use for something. It takes language from being democratic to being autocratic and there will always be people for whom that REALLY gets under their skin... and when a group that loves throwing around the word 'Freedom' does it, then it gets ironic, hypocritical, and downright grating.
The universe have more than just one clan of BORG. We use to have just Microsoft Borg. Now I believe we also have FSF Borg, and the Standard Linux BORG.... Or I may just be completely BORGED this monday morning....
For fuck sake people, everyone you dislike is NOT a terrorist.
Well, not under the original definition, perhaps. We might identify that definition as "terrorist1", something like:
terrorist1, n. A person carrying out attacks on a civilian population with the purpose of inducing a state of terror in the population, in order to put pressure on their government to change policies.
But if you look for the term in current English texts, you'll find it mostly used in the US and UK, and the definition has clearly changed. Some (but not all) of the recent activities of the US and UK government do satisfy the above terrorist1 definition. Consider the "Shock and Awe" slogan during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is a clear statement of an intent to invoke terror of American firepower in the minds of the civilian population, and the purpose was a takeover of the local government, so it is clear that "terrorist1" applies to the people who used this slogan.
However, hardly anyone in the US or UK media would agree, and they never apply the term "terrorist" to their own government's actions. If you study current usage, you'll find that there is now a new "terrorist2" definition. This usage may be explained in most cases as:
terrorist2, n. Someone that the speaker/writer strongly dislikes; typically used with the purpose of inducing a similar dislike in listeners/readers.
Now, most English dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Their purpose is to aid readers trying to understand texts written in English, rather than to inform readers about some "correct" usage. So we can expect that English dictionaries will soon have an entry something like:
terrorist, n. 1) obs. A person carrying out attacks on a civilian population with the purpose of inducing a state of terror in the population, in order to put pressure on their government to change policies. 2) Someone that the speaker/writer strongly dislikes; typically used with the purpose of inducing a similar dislike in listeners/readers.
I'd expect that many of the dictionary makers already have such a definition prepared for their next issue.
It's an unfortunate artifact of human languages that correctly understanding words often depends on knowledge of when and where the words were used. Many words change their meaning over a time span of a few decades. We are seeing just one of thousands of examples here.
We might also note that most dictionaries published in the US call themselves dictionaries of "the American language", not "English", and have done so for quite a long time.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.