Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Puts Support Behind GPL2 Linux
Christiangrays writes "Linux creator Linus Torvalds has used an interview being made public by the Linux Foundation to stress that version 2 of the GPL still makes the most sense for the Linux kernel over the newer GPL version 3. GPL 3, which was released last year by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), reflects the FSF's goals while GPL 2 closely matches what Torvalds thinks a licence should do, Torvalds said. "I want to pick the licence that makes the most sense for what I want to do. And at this point in time, Version 2 matches what I think we want to do much, much better than Version 3," said Torvalds, who is now a fellow at the foundation. He was interviewed in late-October by Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin."
So the RMS position pre-supposes his software is the best in which case the point of the GPL is to have hardware makers adopt it, which will give him access to the code running his hardware. So when the closed hardware people starting using non-code secrets to keep their hardware closed, instead of relying on the secrets of proprietary code, this didn't go down well, cause that's why they offered up their superior code in the first place.
People like Linus, have a non-trivial code base out there, but don't think it's the best. For them the GPL serves to get people who want/need better code to use the existing code base as a foundation and to then share their improvements with Linus and friends. As long as they share their improvements people with this mind set don't really care what the code is being used for, and want to encourage people to improve it.
So one set of people care about open hardware, one set of people care about open code. Ironically it is the open hardware people that run the "Free Software Foundation", which controls the path of the GPL. Since the two goals are somewhat divergent it makes sense that newer versions of the GPL would suit people with a different mindset and goals less.
Personally I think the FSF has been indirect in stating their goals and got a lot of people behind their banner that didn't truly support what they did and now you have this perceived dissension. When really you have two parallel efforts that share a lot, and should collaborate a lot but should also acknowledge their differences when doing so, so that when one effort does something to serve some of their separate interests the other group doesn't take it like a betrayal.