Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Writers Spreading FUD About GPLv3

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the spreading-something-but-it-sure-ain't-fud dept.

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.

7 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. Strange.. by Square+Snow+Man · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Strange.. by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe Linus just does not like the part about hardware in the license. He could always take the GPL 3 license and take that part out or whatever he wants to do, but the patent issue worries me for the Linux project. What if people start putting patented code into the kernel and launch a massive legal assault?

      My projects are web applications so I decided to switch them over to GPL3 because of better internationalization in the license. I did not want someone from another country nit-picking the GPL2 license for mis-understood translations of the document in a foreign courtroom so I switched the license.

      I understand both Linus's and the FSF point of view on controlling the hardware but since that part of the license doesn't effect my projects at all I do not see the point of letting a better worded license go to waste!

      I think a lot of projects don't need to care about this hardware issue and hardware companies could always ask the copyright holder for permission anyway. I see a few problems with Linus's thinking.

      1) Is it so hard for Motorola for example to just send an email off to the copyright holder.. "Hey mind if you put your stuff in our phone and not let anyone run the modifications? Could you send us that in writing? Thanks!"
      2) How do we know these companies (example Motorola) are contributing back what they are putting into their linux smart phone? What is to stop them from giving out the pretend source code before they made modifications and then keeping the real code in house?

      If it can happen it will happen and they can just claim thats stuff they wrote that runs on top no one will know any differently.

      I don't really agree with anyones point of view on the hardware issue but you have to admit that there are unanswered questions with regard to Linus's thoughts on the matter.

  2. All of Our Brains Are Broke by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So by posting this, am I spreading fud about spreading fud? I think I broke my brain. If your brain is broken, it's probably because you tried to read this article!

    I wouldn't call them journalists and sully my own profession If you are a journalist, I think that implies that you have a high standard in how you report news. I hate to say it but not only is your formatting terrible and your grammar lacking in places, your piece is possibly just as one-sided as the "FUD" spreaders you speak of. On top of that, you present very few facts or examples to back up your argument.

    Detractors - the fear squad - would, of course, say that he's on one side of the equation.

    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.
  3. Personally... by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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
  4. Too complicated by hey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. Several ways by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:It's Us or Them by halivar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.