Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds Gives 'Thumbs Up' To Nvidia For Nouveau Contributions
sfcrazy writes "Linus Torvalds has had some harsh words for Nvidia in the past. Their failure to work constructively with the Linux community is especially disappointing in light of the company's large presence in the Android market. That said, where there is life, there is change, and that is just what happened yesterday. Torvalds publicly gave a thumbs-up to Nvidia for contributing basic support for the recently released Nvidia K1 processor to Nouveau; something that was totally unexpected but received with open arms. 'Hey, this time I'm raising a thumb for nvidia. Good times,' said Linus."
That caused me to never buy another nVidia product since.
...for how communication gets skewed fast these days.
'Hey, this time I'm raising a thumb
The article says Thumb and so Linus is actually saying good job, BUT you have a long way still to go.
Torvalds has said in the past something about that he doesn't want to associate with "free software" (or at least FSF) types because they're so "extreme" or such (can't find a link sorry). (Also that if a GNU kernel or 386BSD had existed that he probably wouldn't've wrote Linux.)
That doesn't excuse G+ use (the first link actually caught me off guard...me and my stupid blind-clicking), but he doesn't see himself as so much of a strict FOSS advocate, so you probably see why he wouldn't give as much of a crap about whether the publishing channel is FOSS as, say, you or rms.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Google+, despite what a lot of people think, is very popular for companies to utilize for work projects. Hangouts is a great way to create conference calls, and since its tied into your other Google services like Drive, you can pretty much use it as a company intranet. I have been a contractor for companies that had employees across the states, and most of them have used G+ in the way I described. I would simply be added to a hangout for meetings with the team, they would place the files I needed access to on Drive and then there was little risk of me getting access to more critical business stuff. I was also part of a contracting team that just had a G+ page, and we would meet with clients in the exact same way. I personally didn't like this method, as I prefer to have more face time with clients, but it seemed to work well as a free platform to do business.
If we assume that the Linux team does something similar, its probably easy for Linus to get his ideas across on a social media platform where a decent portion of his development community lives. I have seen many ex-Google friends follow this same trend when they leave Google and create their start-ups. Chris Messina do it with NeonMob, as well as a few others that I met at Plus20. I cannot say this is necessarily the single best method, but it might be that they don't like FB, Twitter's limitations make it harder to utilize in this manner, so G+ is the next best place to put your ideas down for a large user base to view.
Aren't there plenty of other, and Free, ways to publish?
I believe there are, but they're probably not widely enough used to be worthwhile for the desired purpose: to communicate.
It's not the end of the world but when someone like Linus Torvalds does it I think it sends a message that undermines the value placed on FOSS systems.
I don't think so. I do not believe that the value of Free systems is undermined by making any use of any non-Free systems or components. For example, most (if not all) banks use proprietary software for their ATMs. This does not mean that I expect every prominent figure in the Free and Open Source software world to boycott ATMs and go to a human teller when they need to get some money out.
I'm a big believer in Free Software, but I also believe in being pragmatic. If something needs to be done or needs to work but is not possible with entirely Free software, I think it's better that it be done with as little non-Free software as practical, rather than not done with entirely Free software. Torvalds takes the former approach, Stallman takes the latter.
Though if memory serves, didn't Torvalds and Stallman have an argument on Google+? If even Stallman thinks Google+ is acceptable enough, it can't be that undermining to the value of Free systems.
Nothing wrong with being an ass, if the cause is just and the talent is used in moderation.
The results and tact that Linus uses this falls clearly in the acceptable category. He believes in high standards, but never goes out-of-bounds into silly land.
Something to admire, in my book.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
"Though if memory serves, didn't Torvalds and Stallman have an argument on Google+? If even Stallman thinks Google+ is acceptable enough, it can't be that undermining to the value of Free systems."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I kind of doubt Richard Stallman has a Google+ account tough there are probably multiple fake accounts of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
"For personal reasons, he generally does not actively browse the web from his computer; rather, he uses wget and reads the fetched pages from his e-mail mailbox, claiming to limit direct access via browsers to a few sites such as his own or those related to his work with GNU and the FSF."
Well, it's better than Facebook at least.
Are there FOSS alternatives to Facebook and Google+ that are actually used by a number of people?
Linus uses Google+ for more than just commenting on kernels and such, he sends photos what's happening on his vacations and so forth, like a typical social network person. However as a minor celebrity he can have people follow him without him accepting friend requests and such, split people into separate groups for posting purposes (though I heard facebook evolved to do this also).
I'm on Google+, as my only Google product, and it does the job and seems to work. I'm not sure why people hate it, except for the Facebook fans who think everyone must be there or be nowhere.
Not that I really want to continue with AMD under linux, but Linus should give them the middle finger too.
I hear status.net and friendica.com are useful but have not tried either personally.
"that are actually used by a number of people?"
Oh. Not that I'm aware of.
How wonderful is this actually?
Can Nouveau really compete with their blob?
I'm not particularly into gaming, but I understand recently Linux has been gaining
some traction as a gaming platform.
Is there a relation, in that Nvidia badly would need some goodwill to not miss that
bandwagon?
I also voted with my wallet. When I built my latest machine, I went for an ATI video card because I knew I would be installing Linux.
Then its good enough for me too. So "Thumbs up!" Nvidia!
John_Chalisque
From the article you linked to...
"Although not released until 1992 due to legal complications, development of 386BSD, from which NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD descended, predated that of Linux. Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he probably would not have created Linux.[32]"
A 386 BSD *had* "existed" but it's future was cloudy due to lawsuit. Had the timing of those legal questions been more favorable, there would be no Linux today.
Torvalds has said in the past something about that he doesn't want to associate with "free software" (or at least FSF) types because they're so "extreme" or such (can't find a link sorry).
This probably isn't the link that you were referring to but in the discussion around GPLv3 he does mention that Linux has always been Open Source as opposed to Free Software and the FSF evangelizing Linux as a free software project is not something he advocates.
Just because the ability for someone to run a FOSS environment is largely because of work done by Linus, doesn't mean he's actually a FOSS advocate. He's always used the best tool for the job be that open source or otherwise. Usually he'll eventually write some alternative that fits his needs better (see Git), but I doubt he plans on writing a social networking tool.
The open source driver has been fine for me. I'm not a gamer, though. For games, I don't know. In any event, since Nvidia is now beginning to contribute rather than obstruct work on Nouveau, I don't see any reason that it shouldn't be similar to the proprietary driver very soon.
I'm on Google+, as my only Google product, and it does the job and seems to work. I'm not sure why people hate it, except for the Facebook fans who think everyone must be there or be nowhere.
Its not the facebook fans that hate it.
Its the people who have seen the abuse that things like facebook have done to violate people's privacy.
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
But intelligent people realize this is a hollow promise, one that can be violated by Google themselves, or any random
hacker that manages to penetrate Google's security, or any random NSA agent that wants to gen up a letter.
When one of these copycat services, provides public/private key encryption capabilities with the server side
not knowing your private key, let me know. But in the meantime, I trust regular old email (encrypted where necessary)
more than a central repository in the hands of a third party that can't make any money without selling something
to me, or breaking their promise and selling me to someone else After all, once you agree to go
public with a Plus profile, you've essentially surrendered the last vestige of your privacy.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Aren't there plenty of other, and Free, ways to publish? It's not the end of the world but when someone like Linus Torvalds does it I think it sends a message that undermines the value placed on FOSS systems. If end-user control isn't important for Torvalds' personal communication, when is it?
OMG LINUS is on GOOGLE+ the shame, how horrible. Doesn't he realize how dangerous attaching your name to the evil empire is? The world is coming to an end our GURU has been seduced by the dark side of the source! GET REAL it is free to use and is effective as a communication platform unlike places where anon cowards can slag away and heckle, intelligent debate can take place if you read some of the replies at least they are not slagging him for complimenting Nvidia on their decision.
I post this as anon coward for the irony factor. The numbers of posts that slag everything Google on slashdot is very telling, the Microsoft sponsored scroogle campaign still has legs and there as still a huge number of goofasses out there spreading fud. It has become almost laughable and is almost as funny to watch as the old tin foil hat crowd here on slashdot. At least Linus does not wear one. Who knows maybe tomorrow he will slag Google for creating Android or Samsung, Sony, LG or whoever for using his kernel for free on so many devices most likely including his living room TV without including all the source on some digital recording media like a cd or dvd or whatever included with the device. But I doubt it. LOL
nuff said
I stand corrected then, though it was a very convincing fake. I still stand by the rest of the post, though.
Torvalds has said in the past something about that he doesn't want to associate with "free software" (or at least FSF) types because they're so "extreme"
I can understand that. I wouldnt want to be associated with people like this either! Maybe if those FSF types had spent more time innovating and creating a product people want then people might actually use Free Software, instead it's an attack on proprietary products as they scramble to build a poor immitation. Where is the FSF iPad? or the FSF iPhone? Or even the FSF PC? Always a late-to-the-game me-too product that fails to capture the end user because their *only* play is freedom and very often people would rather sacrifice the freedom to modify and install programs on their device than sacrifice the efficient operation and ease of use and that is their choice.
The FSF needs to prove that free products can compete with proprietary ones in addition to being freedom free and not continue on this misguided idea that the *only* thing that matters is freedom and that people will use whatever rubbish you give them so long as it is freedom free. The ideology *can* succeed but when the leader of it is using wget to pull the text of webpages and email it to himself to view locally that shows exactly what the problem with the Free Software ideology is and why it has failed in the mainstream.
Oh I use email. I'm not putting up anything on G+ that I would want to hide from the entire world. Though it is problematic at time. Such as the android phone wanting to tie all its services to my G+ account if it can, that is I can't use a G+ app without it thinking that account should be used for everything. Targeted advertisements creep me out. I used to wonder if G+ was only for Doctor Who fans since that's half of all the public stuff I see, then realized that Google is filtering content based on what it thinks I like (the upside is that it figured out I don't want to see updates from gangsta rappers or boy bands).
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
But intelligent people realize this is a hollow promise, one that can be violated by Google themselves, or any random
hacker that manages to penetrate Google's security, or any random NSA agent that wants to gen up a letter.
And how is this different than any other company? It's not. If you're worried about these things, you shouldn't be using any online products/services from any corporation at all. In fact, if you're worried about random hackers, you either shouldn't be putting any of your data online at all, anywhere, or if you think you're so great at security, you should only be using systems that you've set up yourself and manage yourself.
But in the meantime, I trust regular old email (encrypted where necessary)
Regular old email can't be used to publish a blog to anyone in the world who cares to read it. You could use a blogging service, but then that could be hacked by some random hacker. Or, you could get an account with a hosting service and set up your own Wordpress site, but there again some random hacker could hack it, so that won't work for you either.
I remember him saying that during a talk he gave at our university.
I think that is the point where everyone realized he is crazy.
For personal reasons, he generally does not actively browse the web from his computer; rather, he uses wget and reads the fetched pages from his e-mail mailbox, claiming to limit direct access via browsers to a few sites such as his own or those related to his work with GNU and the FSF
He's an "Amish" programmer?
Regular old email can't be used to publish a blog to anyone in the world who cares to read it. You could use a blogging service, but then that could be hacked by some random hacker. Or, you could get an account with a hosting service and set up your own Wordpress site, but there again some random hacker could hack it, so that won't work for you either.
He was talking about privacy violation, if everything you put on Google+ is stuff you don't mind being public then there's not going to be any violation of privacy.
Another factor that might be pushing vendors to provide information to open source developers and/or publishing open source drivers is the fallout from the Snowden revelations.
People worldwide have awakened to the possibility that malware may be imbedded in closed drivers and firmware (including closed "binary blobs" embedded in open-source drivers). Indeed, it WAS imbedded in some - and sold as a feature. (Example: Intel's AMT, early versions of which lived in and ran from the Ethernet interface firmware, before it was moved to the Northbridge.)
Even if it isn't contaminated, a vendor can't SHOW that it's not contaminated as long as it's closed. So to convince jittery customers that the device is safe, the vendor needs to have open drivers and firmware available.
A vendor's own souce may include licensed code from others, making it hard for the vendor to open its own code (and perhaps contaminating its own developers). On the other hand, releasing the necessary information to the open souce community can lead to fully open support - at negligable cost (excluding perceived risk of exposing company secret-sauce recipes to the world - which won't matter if the customers stop buying the sauce-covered product, or demand falls enough for them to lose their competitive position).
So the Snowden revalations have created a strong incentive for vendors to enable open source developers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I hate it because I have an online pseudonym for a reason. as "kits" I'm know to a few thousand people. As my real name, I'm known to a dozen or so. I do not want people who know "kits" to be able to find out who I am. I do not want my IRL identity tied to my most prevalent online identity. I don;t give a fuck if google knows; they most certainly do. What I do care about are the five or six really creepy fans I have showing up at my house or place of work.
So yeah, G+ can fuck off.
That's a very good point. If you're posting stuff for the world to read, then why would you care about "privacy violations"?
Is all the information you provide to and post on Google+ public? If so then you're right.
I can understand that. I wouldnt want to be associated with people like this
So you think DRM is a good thing? You think it is good that companies take freedom and control away from users? You can be anti-DRM without fully supporting the FSF.
My take is that companies shouldn't get copyright protection if they use DRM. Your software has DRM? No copyright for you.
Actually, it sounds more like he has principles and wishes to stick to them. In a world of unprincipled people (such as people who sacrifice freedom for safety), I guess principled people would sound "crazy" to those people.
Read the beginning of this very thread:
Google+, despite what a lot of people think, is very popular for companies to utilize for work projects. Hangouts is a great way to create conference calls, and since its tied into your other Google services like Drive, you can pretty much use it as a company intranet.
Letting Google, or any third party, be privy to all of your company's internal affairs is quite a precarious position to voluntarily put yourself in. This is the context in which this thread started.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
So you think DRM is a good thing?
Not necessarily but if it does not get in my way I have no problem with it and if it does get in my way I choose not to use the product.
You think it is good that companies take freedom and control away from users?
No that is wrong and is either a misguided or malicious attempt to sway people to your way of thinking: Companies do not take any freedom or control away from users, users make the decision to not have a very specific ability to do a thing in a very specific context of their own will and have the choice to do this or not. So tell me what exact specific freedom in a specific context you had that a company took away from you?
If you do not like DRM then do not use it and do not support the companies that use it in their products. You are *free* to make that choice.
I have an NVIDIA graphic card that goes back a few years, and NVIDIA still supports it and updates the drivers. I have an AMD/ATI graphics card that is significantly less old, and they do not support it, as the drivers are dated. I have called AMD a few times about this and wrote to them, but they brush it off. I want to see AMD/ATI pick up the slack and support their products. Then I will keep buying them.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
386BSD had bigger problems than the UCB lawsuit (which it was not involved with). The project had weak leadership and a huge amount of infighting, which is the real reason 3 different *BSDs forked out of it. Its quite possible Torvolds looked at the BSD mailinglists and said "forget them!"
Torvolds also wanted to make an OS designed around the x86 processor and PC AT architecture ... meanwhile old BSD was very obviously a port from bigger systems.
I HATE Google+ for one simple reason... Google is trying very, very hard to push it down the throats of everyone using any google services.
I used-to write reviews for Android apps in the Play Store, no problem... Now I can't do so, nor even vote an app, or a review of an app as helpful, unhelpful, or flag it as spam, without a G+ account. Nag nag nag. Strange that everything worked fine before G+, but now G+ is strictly required.
Nearly the same is true for YouTube. There is no end to the nagging about linking a G+ account. And they make it a one-click process, so you click "OK" once by accident, and you've got a G+ account populated with your private information and address book from your gmail account, and all your information is now subjected to their insanely intrusive G+ (lack-of...) privacy policy.
Google+ is plain, old-fashioned, SPAM.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Stop gargling toreballs' testicles.
It goes the other way too. Ie, you can't use Google+ without also having a stupid youtube account. Clicked by accident now I have that youtube account I can't get rid of. If I upload pictures they are a part of picassa automatically. So why blame Google+ while not blaming Youtube also? Google wants a universal account which is the core problem, not Google+ itself.
In a world of unprincipled people (such as people who sacrifice freedom for safety), I guess principled people would sound "crazy" to those people.
Freedom is not one thing, the intentionally vague use of it just hurts your argument. RMS gives up a certain amount of freedoms for safety too so your argument is invalid anyway.
You mean the FSF people who made GCC, GNU binutils, and a myriad of other tools you use daily as the core of your Linux-based OS?
Are you talking about THOSE FSF people?
People hate it because the experience is so lousy. A chat window which is what, 20x30 characters? Hello? Can't be resized? Hellooo?
I give a rats ass about Google+. Unfortunately some clients want me to use it. I registered with minimum real information, rest completely false, with a bogus profile picture to boot.
Sounds similar to systemd in linux.
Why would you post anything else?
Freedom is not one thing, the intentionally vague use of it just hurts your argument.
It hurts your brain, not my argument. If you've been alive even a few years, you'd probably know what I'm talking about.
You can be anti-DRM without fully supporting the FSF.
Of course I can. Enforcing GPL is a manual DRM. The question is, can I be anti-DRM while supporting FSF?
You mean the FSF people who made GCC, GNU binutils, and a myriad of other tools you use daily as the core of your Linux-based OS?
I don't use Linux or any of those other tools on a daily basis. I looked a bit at GCC but frankly it is a complete mess to port to other systems so I went for VBCC instead.
Freedom and free-for-all are kind of different things, though.
Linus attacking the FSF all the time is hard to explain and tends to come across as petty rivalry. As good a demonstration as any that Linus isn't perfect.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Maybe if those FSF types had spent more time innovating and creating a product people want then people might actually use Free Software,
*cough* *cough* Gcc, Libc, etc etc *cough* *cough*
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
He has on occasion really pissed people off by going overboard with the "pragmatism" which degenerated into a huge mess with the Bitkeeper fiasco for example. Didn't believe the warnings he got. Eventually bailed his rep out out by coming up with Git, but that doesn't mean he wasn't just acting stupid at the time, in fact that is arguably where the Git name comes from.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Any cooperation is better than nothing but it would be nice if using the blob driver in Xen's Dom0 was an option - I've found it to be pretty decent in the past for everything else but am looking at having to buy an ati card (or go with onboard video...ugh) given that I'm looking to mess with Xen at home.
Ancient history now, but RMS once demanded that Linux be put under FSF control (or else!), and that's probably the cause of Linus' dislike of them.
I've been using nVidia cards on my Linux workstations for many years. Well, I recently found out the hard way that Xinerama is broken on any driver version after 319. Ouch. And has been for the last 9 months and with no response from nVdia. Double ouch. Thumbs down.
LLVM/Clang are running circles around GCC nowadays.
Hey, I'm a Nouveau developer and I had a chance to discuss with an nvidia engineer @ FOSDEM. This collaboration is strictly limited to Tegra and on the kernel side (at least for the moment).
There is some overlap with the desktop cards (mostly Kepler family) which will allow us to benefit of this collaboration in more than the SoC world. This is however very interesting and I'm really looking forward to seeing how it will pan out!
The issue with GPLv3 was that it would have rendered the Linux kernel toxic. It would have precluded its use in embedded devices, appliances, set top boxes etc., it would have prevented binary blob drivers and it would have been nigh on impossible to do anyway given all the contributions by individuals and companies. So they left it the way it was. I expect even if Linus had tried to impose it (and fortunately he is too pragmatic for that), the kernel would have instantly forked from the pre-GPLv3 version and the GPLv3 version would have been DOA.
Don't forget he's European. He probably meant "sit on this, Nvidia".
Well he's somewhere on the half way between BSD and FSF. BSD people care about usage (open, proprietary, doesn't matter), FSF people care about freedom (abiltiy to fix it yourself). Linus cares about the source code and the project. He doesn't care that Tivo locks down their machine as long as he gets any improvements they make so he can roll it into his own kernel and run it on his machine. Linus doesn't like the GPLv3, Linus doesn't like the BSD license, he likes the GPLv2 no more and no less. What he wants is to build the best kernel he can build, popularity and freedom are simply incidental to the process.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ancient history now, but RMS once demanded that Linux be put under FSF control (or else!), and that's probably the cause of Linus' dislike of them.
[citation needed]
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The issue with GPLv3 was that it would have rendered the Linux kernel toxic. It would have precluded its use in embedded devices, appliances, set top boxes etc.
How?
it would have been nigh on impossible to do anyway given all the contributions by individuals and companies.
"Or any later version".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If you don't understand the difference between crippling software such that the *user* cannot do certain things with it even if they want to, and software licenses, then you're a god damn idiot.
Not necessarily but if it does not get in my way I have no problem with it and if it does get in my way I choose not to use the product.
Then you're unprincipled. Big surprise.
Companies do not take any freedom or control away from users
Of course they do. They take away the freedom to run the software and use its features as they please. Were the DRM removed, the users would be have more freedom with the software.
It also poses another problem; the existence of DRM on a piece of software usually means that it's neither free (as in freedom) or open source, and that brings with it privacy and security concerns.
If you do not like DRM then do not use it and do not support the companies that use it in their products. You are *free* to make that choice.
Yeah, thanks for stating the obvious. That's pretty much the entire point of the Defective By Design campaign: Don't use software that has DRM.
You're also free to not go in airports. Therefore, the TSA doesn't violate anyone's freedoms. Of course, that logic is nonsensical and should be ridiculed by anyone with a brain. The mere fact that something isn't absolutely necessary does not mean that you don't have less freedom when someone decides to take away some of your possible options.
Maybe so, but gcc was pretty much the only game in town for many years and gcc remains in development and very widely used.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
When the alternative is Facebook, it makes complete sense.
On Facebook there is a limit on the number of "friends" a person can have, which breaks the system for popular personalities. Also, since friendship on FB is two-way, he would have to approve each any every "follow".
The solution is to create a page which people can "friend" (stupid as that may sound) in order to follow it and get updates. The problem is that FB nerfed that functionality about one year ago in order to boost their IPO: page owners now have to pay to have their posts visible on the user's feeds, otherwise, you only reach a small percentage of them.
Google+, for all it's evils does this very well. It has the same "follow" principles as Twitter, without the limitations.
Nowadays I go to FB to check on my friends and Google+ to check on the techies I follow. I think it works out pretty well.
So, you are asking why people hate G+.. Want to rate the Android app you just paid and installed from Google Play? Not without G+ account. Want to use some more space in your Blogger-hosted blog? Not anymore, without G+. Want to leave a comment on Youtube? No you can not do that without G+. List goes on. Forcing people to use something is not usually the best way to get positive attitude against it.
In a world of unprincipled people (such as people who sacrifice freedom for safety), I guess principled people would sound "crazy" to those people.
Freedom is not one thing, the intentionally vague use of it just hurts your argument. RMS gives up a certain amount of freedoms for safety too so your argument is invalid anyway.
RMS is a todays hermit. He thinks that conveniences of modern life are enslaving him, so he learned to live without them and sees it as liberation. What he does is not different than refusal to use money (seen as Mammon), or many rules by which Amish or orthodox Jews live.
I think it's pretty obvious "How?". GPLv3 tries to dictate how hardware running DRM stuff should work. So, your set-top box does not support the Netflix app because of a license incompatibility due to GPLv3? Then you're gonna use something else than Linux, or consumers won't buy your box.
The FSF are a political group by definition. The FSF are advocating for the ethical solution to the social problem of proprietary software. Torvalds says that he wants to be apolitical, he doesn't like proselytism of the FSF for morality in software distribution, and doesn't believe that proprietary software is a social problem. Stallman constantly advocates for the morally of free software and this annoys Torvalds who doesn't care for politics so Torvalds has criticized Stallman for his opinions about companies and technology that don't subscribe to Stallman's morality. This is why Torvalds responds to Stallman's rhetoric in a hostile manner because Stallman is arguing for ethics and morality while Torvalds only wants to see technically superior software.
it would have been nigh on impossible to do anyway given all the contributions by individuals and companies.
"Or any later version"
Only if the authors specifically used that license, the default for the kernel is GPLv2 only. And it's not a democracy, if authors refuse or can't be located or are dead with no heirs to manage the estate the only safe way would be to totally write out those patches. Some have suggested various "abandonware" or "implied by contributing" theories to give the project authority to relicense but it'd be a legal landmine field. For example USC 17506(d): "Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500." That's a criminal copyright statute, not a civil one. Of course it hinges on the "fraudulent" part, but it would be pretty fraudulent to claim the author has given permission to use that code under the GPLv3. In short, even if you got most the core contributors and corporate sponsors on board it'd be a huge undertaking.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Even with all the anger and idiocy of the emacs split some time back RMS at least did not prevent the emacs developer of the time from using the code despite RMS having control of the copyright. He sticks to the principles he preaches.
I've got slightly different ones and think that claiming the work of others as my own is just not on even if it is "in a good cause" such as "calling attention to gnu" with the LiGnuX and gnu/linux things, however I'm aware that in some environments such behavior is seen as normal so RMS probably sees nothing wrong with that.
The thing to keep in mind is that the Bitkeeper thing blew up due to a licence violation.
Ideals really went out the window there didn't they? "Respect no licence but mine" doesn't sound fair does it?
Forcing Linus to roll his own wasn't a victory for free software but instead the consequences of a wrecker who did not respect the very thing free software is built upon - respect for the licence terms that the person who has provided the software asks for.
The main problem with privacy on social networks, as far as I can tell, is presenting different information to different people. You might like to use your social network account to say something to a bunch of family members (perhaps talking about a reunion, or problems with a deadbeat sibling, etc.) which you don't want your employer or other acquaintances to see. Or you might like to share political things with your close friends which of course you don't want your employer or the whole world to see. So you might not care too much that Google the company sees this stuff and shows you ads based on it, but you don't want some prospective employer browsing your profile and seeing all your dirty laundry and political views or whatever.
The big problem with Facebook is that they simply don't seem to have any concept of this. They think everything should be out in the open for everyone in the world to see; it's apparent by the way they've behaved. They've only put in privacy protections because of intense user demand, and even then they usually don't work very well and frequently don't work at all, the settings change on you randomly, etc. It's plainly obvious they really don't want you keeping secrets from your employer or anyone else in the world, and they have an agenda of eliminating all privacy entirely. Google, OTOH, for all their faults, does seem to understand this, which is why they have "circles" on Google+, to keep things separate, which is why Linus can make kernel-related posts to the world at large, while sharing family photos with his close friends and family members without everyone else seeing that stuff. That's something you just can't do with Facebook. Google does have its problems (like trying to force everyone into G+, pushing everyone to use real names on YouTube, totally screwing up the UI in Gmail, etc.), but I've never heard of them screwing up privacy protections the way Facebook has.
Letting Google, or any third party, be privy to all of your company's internal affairs is quite a precarious position to voluntarily put yourself in.
Yes, but tons of companies do it all the time by using "cloud" services. You can't single out Google for this; if your company uses any cloud services at all, then it's making the same mistake. This also applies to the many, many large corporations who outsource their IT services. It's all-or-nothing: either never use any 3rd-party cloud services at all, and do all your IT in-house, or stop worrying about it. You can't outsource your IT support services to Dell and then complain about Google having access to your company's data. Google is no better or worse than any other 3rd-party company (except Facebook).
Even if the kernel had gone GPLv3, it would not meant set top boxes would suddenly be free. Why? Because the SoC providers would fork from the pre-v3 version and carry on and longer term jump ship to a BSD based SDK. The only loser would be the Linux kernel and all the contributors who spent so much time and effort porting it to embedded devices.
"Or any later version".
The kernel is licenced under GPLv2, not a later version. Using the GPLv2 doesn't grant someone the right to arbitrarily change the licence from v2 to v3. Read the legalise of the GPL and you will see that the program must explicitly say or later and the kernel doesn't.
I didn't single out Google: I specifically said "or any third party". I'll stop using the name Google and use "cloud" from now on if that'll ease your need to apologize for them.
Anyway, the solution to realizing that you've given someone else the keys to your kingdom and free access to all business negotiations and trade secrets isn't to "stop worrying about it", which is exactly my point.
Relying on a "cloud" company for all of your IT services is negligent and short-sighted. Having another company supply infrastructure or manage individual services isn't as bad.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
The project had weak leadership and a huge amount of infighting, which is the real reason 3 different *BSDs forked out of it. Its quite possible Torvolds looked at the BSD mailinglists and said "forget them!"
Is it safe to be exposed to such high levels of irony?
Is upward thumbs is the equivalent of a middle finger?
GNU/Linux isn't "claiming the work of others as [their] own". Linux is the kernel, the tools are GNU. Linux is not the only available kernel (Hurd), nor is GNU the only option (busybox).
"The FSF are advocating for the ethical solution to the social problem of proprietary software. "
There isnt a social problem with proprietary software - some members of society want software without paying for it. That isnt a social problem; its a problem for those members of society.
Anyway, the solution to realizing that you've given someone else the keys to your kingdom and free access to all business negotiations and trade secrets isn't to "stop worrying about it", which is exactly my point.
What other solution is there? Now that most Fortune 500 companies have outsourced their IT services, what the heck is the point of worrying about other entities having access to this information?
Relying on a "cloud" company for all of your IT services is negligent and short-sighted. Having another company supply infrastructure or manage individual services isn't as bad.
I don't see how it's any different. It's not just individual non-critical services that major corporations are outsourcing, it's their entire IT infrastructure. They no longer have IT departments as such; those are outsourced to other companies.
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
Well, Google's word plus the annual privacy audits mandated by the FTC consent decree that came out of the Buzz fiasco.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
Well, Google's word plus the annual privacy audits mandated by the FTC consent decree that came out of the Buzz fiasco.
Correction: The audit is biennial, not annual.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
God forbid you try to get anything mobile or custom working. To be fair, it's just as tiring trying to upgrade previous generation ATI hardware to the latest version of Windows. I especially love the broken chipset installers that recognize that the hardware is present but refuse to install or recompile a driver for them. Not an ATI fan.
While I agree with the sentiment, most companies have little to hide from the likes of Google, their cloud providers, or even the NSA. If anything they are hiding from the IRS. There are often time sensitive information passed out on a G+ business page, but its likely useless to anyone that's not a direct competitor.
I am on your side when it comes to relying on a cloud company for IT, but at the same time I can tell you that in a lot of cases its the best bad decision some companies can make. I cannot tell you how many previous companies I have worked for have told me about the way they planned to deploy their IT infrastructure before simply moving to the cloud and letting them handle it. Until they could afford to bring someone like me in to tell them how to do it, the cloud was the best option. I have seen people want to bring in servers to run a business of 5 people, and not a server, MANY servers. While that was some very forward thinking, it was not at all what they needed and would have bankrupted their company before they got off the ground. Sometimes you just cannot afford to make that investment early on, but taking a cheaper route that will likely succeed in the short term is a very good bad decision. Now,all that being said, I think you need to really think about your IT before you expand too far, and invest into it properly.
Whoa, suggesting that Linus isn't perfect gets a down mod? I would suggest that some mod isn't perfect.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Your story is pure revisionism. Bitkeeper blew up because the proprietor keep changing the license terms to be more draconian, which everybody knew would happen except Linus.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
the very thing free software is built upon - respect for the licence terms that the person who has provided the software asks for.
Oh, please. Copyleft is a reaction against copyright, not an endorsement of it. Free software is built on the idea that users should have free access to the source code for the software they use and the right to modify it as they choose, and redistribute the modifications under the same terms. The only reason to choose copyleft over public domain, if you happen to fall into that camp, is the fear that some company will take the software, develop and promote it to the point that no one uses the original version, and then use copyright to impose their own more restrictive terms, infringing on the user's freedom. In short, without copyright there would be no need for copyleft.
No doubt there are a few other license fanatics like yourself in the free software community, but for the most part I think most free software developers only care about respect for license terms to the extent they deem necessary to protect against the imposition of unreasonable license terms by others. The important thing is that the software and its source code get to users in the freest form possible.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Some members of society don't appreciate jack-booted thugs enforcing idiotic claims to distribution rights of non-scarce goods. The GPL is a flawed solution to the very-real problem of copyright, but at least someone is trying.
Why would you post anything else?
Private messaging, private groups, hangouts...
Then you're unprincipled. Big surprise.
no i am just not a religious absolutist, my principles arent tied to petty things like DRM and neither are yours, you dont even use fully open hardware and you dont inspect the code of every system your internet traffic passes through.
Of course they do. They take away the freedom to run the software and use its features as they please.
did you have the freedom to use that particular software as you please before? no! so it is a fact that they did not take anything away. you are just like the MPAA/RIAA with the "copyright is stealing" argument.
Were the DRM removed, the users would be have more freedom with the software.
yes they would have more freedoms but by not granting them those features the user does not get less freedoms than they already had so nothing has been taken away.
It also poses another problem; the existence of DRM on a piece of software usually means that it's neither free (as in freedom) or open source, and that brings with it privacy and security concerns.
you will always have to trust somebody at some point as going through every line of code in every piece of software and every schematic and line of microcode for all hardware is not practical so the decision is yours as to who you trust.
The mere fact that something isn't absolutely necessary does not mean that you don't have less freedom when someone decides to take away some of your possible options.
and the mere fact that something does not allow you to do absolutely anything you want with it does not take away your freedoms. you come into my house you respect the rules of my house, i am not taking away your freedom in making that demand and you are free not to enter if you so wish.
so the answer to Where is the FSF iPad? or the FSF iPhone? Or even the FSF PC? is that they made gcc and libc. What a compelling argument you make, i am sure all the iOS and Windows users will switch to gcc right away!
i honestly thought the context was pretty clear and if you want a compiler then yes there is gcc and it is brilliant but it isnt a product for end users which is exactly why they choose things like iphones and the closed/proprietary systems continue to dominate. end users dont care about freedom because free end user products either suck or are non-existent.
they are never ahead of the curve, always behind, always following. in 30 years of the FSF we still dont really have a fully free pc and the proprietary vendors have moved on to phone/tablet devices where free versions are also non-existent or poor me-too products.
Linus attacking the FSF all the time is hard to explain and tends to come across as petty rivalry.
He isn't attacking the FSF, in fact he is saying their work on the GPLv2 is brilliant, he just doesn't subscribe to their ideology.
"Or any later version".
No, this was addressed years ago when the GPLv3 draft was first released:
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
I think some people will understand better this post if they see the previous "episode": https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I get that as an ideal but the reality is that whatever you put on someone else's service is out of your hands. If it's semi-private now due to policy you can't be sure it will be next week.
Once it's on someone else's server it's out of your hands and only as private as that third party wants it to be.
I suggest you look at one of the articles of the time instead of speculation.
Please read what you quoted - taking note of "licence terms" which is different to the copyright you are complaining about.
Yes, that is the point.
You are a great comedian.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yes, that's entirely true. However, if your whole goal is to share information with other people, then it's by definition going to be out of your hands one way or another. If you want complete privacy, then you shouldn't be using social networks at all. The whole point of them is to share things with others. The problem is that people frequently like to compartmentalize their sharing, so the best compromise you're going to get is to use a service that allows you to do that, and has a reputation for upholding that. Google actually has a good record here, from what I've seen. Facebook does not; they have a terrible record in fact. Basically, those are your two choices.
I guess if you really wanted, you could make your own web page, and have different logins for different people, but who the hell is going to want to create an account on your personal webpage just so they can see your family photos and other postings? Yeah, I'm sure your friends would really love that.
What other solution is there? Now that most Fortune 500 companies have outsourced their IT services, what the heck is the point of worrying about other entities having access to this information?
Well you could pick a cloud provider that does not know your encryption key at all. That way you get the the advantages of collaboration without the public exposure.
Or you could set up OwnCloud.
Admittedly these to not offer all the advantages of Plus and Drive.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Are you suggesting that the wishes of a software distributor should not be respected?
To me free software looks like it is all about respecting the views of the people producing and distributing the code. To me the bitkeeper licence violation goes against that philosophy no matter what the terms of the licence are.
A lack of convenience is not enough of an excuse to break the terms of a licence - or indeed to revise history if it's inconvenient.
Using Bitkeeper for OSS development in the first place was stupid, that was the issue.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Personally I think deliberately violating the licence was the issue. Plenty of people use software that is not GPL in conjunction with GPL software.
Well I can assure you, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. You are throwing around a serious allegation without substantiation and it is pretty disgusting actually. I am sure you have some twisted concept of what "substantiation means" and you will justify yourself to the ends of the earth. Bye.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The licence violation with the bitkeeper software was proudly admitted to (the person that did it thought it was justified), so don't give me any shit about "allegations". If you didn't even know that much why are you pretending to know enough to "correct" me?
"licence terms" which is different to the copyright you are complaining about.
The "right" to set license terms derives from copyright. Without copyright no one needs a license, so there are no license terms. Everything is public domain.
The point, in case you missed it, is that the foundation of free software is a community of developers who want software to be free, not "respect for license terms", which is something many in the free software camp do not have. Copyleft is first and foremost a pragmatic tool to be used against others who do want licenses to be respected (so that they can set restrictive terms). The rules are theirs, not ours; we're just twisting them to our advantage.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
If it were really a community of developers who want their software to be "free" they'd release everything public domain. That's not what they want. They want software which will remain "free" which requires enforcement of the terms they place on it. Without copyright it is impossible to keep software free as in speech in any meaningful way. Anyone can modify it, keep those modifications private and contribute nothing back.