Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linus on GPL3 In Forbes

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the rehashing-bad-blood dept.

316

musicon writes "In an interview via e-mail with Forbes, Torvalds discusses GPLv3, digital rights management and sharks with laser beams. From the article: 'I'm sure changes will be made [to GPLv3]. The fact that the FSF and I have some fundamentally different views of what the GPLv2 was all about makes me worry that we won't find a good agreement on the next version.'"

cancel ×

316 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh man! (5, Funny)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892295)

sudo apt-get install sharks-with-lasers_kernel_module

Re:oh man! (2, Insightful)

musicon (724240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892573)

Only if you're one of the "evil communist world domination" GPL people :)

Us hippies prefer the peace-and-free-code-_kernel_module.

Re:oh man! (2, Funny)

krewemaynard (665044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892841)

pffffft...

emerge sharks-with-laser-kernel

[wait]

Re:oh man! (2, Funny)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892939)

Obligatory: http://funroll-loops.org/ [funroll-loops.org]

I, for one... (3, Funny)

UseTheSource (66510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892302)

Welcome our laser beam-wearing shark overlords!

Re:I, for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893014)

*yawn*

And in Soviet Russia, laser beams wear sharks!

Couple of things here... (5, Interesting)

Kaellenn (540133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892339)

First off, please forgive my ignorance, but is it really *that* important for Linus to decide to move Linux from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Just because version 3 of the license becomes available does not automatically invalidate the version 2 license does it? Why is this such a hot button issue?

For the most part, I completely agree with Torvalds on his points--and I can't say I'm at all surprised to see Stallman and the FSF take this direction with version 3. Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.

Now I'm not trying to bash Stallman or the FSF, they have made some wonderful contributions to the community. But let's call a spade a spade here and look at what GPLv3 is about: attempting to hide attempts to restrict developers under the guise of being an update to the world's most popular open source license. For all of the FSF's talk against bad copyright policy and software restrictions, this license introduces their own set as if to say, "we don't like their way; so you should definitely do it our way instead."

Too much politics and agenda and not enough open source development.

Re:Couple of things here... (4, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892386)

Is it even possible to relicense Linux under GPLv3?

Did Linus get copyright assignments from every contributor? If not, then there's no way it can ever be really GPLv3, not legally.

Even if the contributors put the "or later" clause, that would still give end users the option for using Version 2.

Re:Couple of things here... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892524)

Picture this....with the or later clause: OpenSource code licensed GPL2 on 3/09/06 New code added to this code starting 3/10/06 with a license switch to GPL3 Sure...you can get the version from 3/09/06 but the new additions will be under GPL3. That is how it is done.

Re:Couple of things here... (3, Informative)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892575)

You can't do that. With the "or later" clause, the end user gets to decide which license they will use.

Unless you actually own the copyright you can't modify the license, so you can't take away the end user's right to choose GPLv2.

Re:Couple of things here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892678)

Indeed... but the "or later" also allows any programmer (still a "user") to fork the code, relicense it under GPLv3 (which he's allowed to do: you said "or later"), make changes, and release the new version under GPLv3 only. Thus, he can cause a license switch, if he wants to.

But of course the kernel doesn't contain the "or later" clause, so basically it will stay as GPLv2 forever. Only completely new components may be GPLv3, although they will probably be GPLv2 if Linus is involved in them.

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892695)

I believe you are wrong here, although I'd like to here an expert say something on this. As I see it anything with the "or later" clause is dual licenced now and any developer wanting to extend that software can choose V2, V3, or "V2 or later" licences. I found the part of the GPL about the "or later" clause and it goes as such:
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
If what you said was true then no current GPL software could be used in GPL v3 software unless all copyright holders gave consent. Remember that the developer is an end user as well.

Re:Couple of things here... (2, Informative)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892821)

Once you add your own code and upgrade the license to V3, I think that it's possible to effectively lock it into a V3 license. I could revert to the original v2.1 cidem code, but if I want to use your new code, I'd be pretty much stuck with V3.

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893032)

That is an oversimplification. If someone receives code with the GPL V2 or later license, they can redistribute under GPL V3 (once it's final). That does not stop someone from receiving it from another source under GPL V2. The GPL allows the recipient to license others under the same terms. This allows them to license others under GPL V3 (if that was one of the terms). However, if someone takes a V3 version and modifies it - the modifications will not be obtainable under V2 (unless the modifications are specifically licensed under V2, of course), nor would the whole. Also, someone who already has rights under V2 cannot lose them by receiving the same software under V3. (V3 may be stricter is certain areas). V3, however, can give additional rights. (There are places where V3 is more lenient) Lastly, there are many files, even in the kernel, that DO state "V2 or later version". So it may not be hard at all.

Re:Couple of things here... (3, Informative)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893122)

It's actually pretty simple. Portions of code licensed as "GPL v2 or later" can be incorporated into a GPL v2 program or a GPL v3 program. Portions of code licensed as GPL v2 only can only be incorporated with GPL v2 programs (or other licenses compatible with GPL v2, of which I believe there are precious few). GPL v3 is not strictly compatible with GPL v2, because it "adds additional restrictions." When you integrate GPL v2-or-later code into a GPL v3 program, the result is GPL v3.

This is sorta like how BSD-minus-advertising-clause is "compatible" with GPL, in that such BSD code can be integrated into a GPL v2 program without violating the BSD license. The result is a GPL v2 program, though. You can't take GPL v2 code and integrate it into a BSD-licensed program and end up with something BSD-licensed, because of the requirements GPL places on requiring source with redistribution. Relicensing as BSD removes that requirement and thus violates the license on the GPL v2 code.

As a user, the only impact of the "GPL v2 or later" clause is that I can pick which ever one suits my fancy. As it stands, GPL v3 places more restrictions on what I can do with the code than GPL v2, so as a user I'll probably pick GPL v2. If GPL v4 were to come along and say "Do whatever you like, you may as well consider this code public domain," then I as a user could go hog wild with it.

As far as migrating the Linux kernel or any other GPL v2 app to GPL v3.... If the license on a bit of code is "GPL v2 or later," then it's trivial to make future versions "GPL v3 only." You can't "take back" the GPL v2-or-later versions, but you can make future versions GPL v3, removing the support for GPL v2. In Linux, portions of the kernel are GPL v2-or-later, so those portions can become parts of GPL v3 apps easily. The bulk of the kernel is GPL v2-only (w/ binary kernel module exception). So to bring the kernel into GPL v3 land, Linus would have to talk nearly everyone into either relicensing the kernel as GPL v2-or-later or GPL v3.

--Joe

Re: From my vantage point (5, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892399)

From my vantage point (and I may well be missing something important), it looks like the anti-GPL3 sentiment comes from a misinterpretation about encryption keys. If that's clarified, either in people's heads or the wording or both, I don't see any real negatives.

I see a GPL that prevents companies from using DRM (which wasn't around for v2) to get around GPL requirements. Basically those same requirements that we liked from v2.

Re: From my vantage point (1)

Kaellenn (540133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892731)

You may well be 100% correct as I am reading people's interpretations and have no desire to peruse the legalese of the actual license.

Re: From my vantage point (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892882)

Not a misinterpretation, a legitimate difference of opinion. RMS wants to make sure that GPLed software can be recompiled by the end user and replaced with an altered version, which is why that was put in the license. By contrast, Linus wants TiVo to continue using the Linux kernel, and TiVo doesn't want to allow users to create custom kernels and still have a usable TiVo, as the ability to do so would potentially allow users to easily break their DRM scheme.

No, one of the fundamental GPL v3 changes is, by intentional design, antithetical to the continued proliferation of Linux in certain types of embedded devices, including TiVo-like devices, set top boxes, etc. Thus, there is and always will be a fundamental tension between RMS's notion of ideal freedom and the Linux community's goal of "Linux everywhere".

This isn't something that can be changed by a simple wording change. IMHO, GPL v3 is basically DOA as far as the kernel is concerned; you can pretty much be guaranteed that if Linus did try to push GPL v3 into the kernel, all the embedded Linux developers would fork, and that fork would result in some really ugly politics and a very dramatic decline in the number of Linux (v3) kernel developers.

Re: From my vantage point (0)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893172)

Isn't that battle already lost though? I mean, is Linux licensed with the "V2 Or Later" clause, or was that left out? If the "Or later clause" is present, then the embedded developers are SOL, because their own fork must also include the "Or later" clause, otherwise backtrack to versions of Linux that were licensed without the clause. IANAL, but that's the way it looks to me.

Really, the "or later" clause gives RMS a spectacular amount of power. He could make V3 a copy of the BSD license, and thus effectively obliterating the GPL completely - after all, any V2 project would be allowed to be converted into a V3 project by anyone using it, and the "or later" clause could not be removed without the permission of all relevant copyright holders - and even so, older versions would retain the "or later" clause.

Re: From my vantage point (3, Insightful)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893196)

Just to throw my two cents in, that's exactly how I read it as well.

The thing is, if we really do get "Linux everywhere," enough people are going to want to start hacking that it'll create an economic incentive to cater to the hackers. Witness the Linux variant of the WRT54G.

IMHO, DRM will only die by collapsing under its own weight, and by heightening consumers' awareness of the issues. Fighting DRM head on by denying access to its underlying technologies (when, as Linus states, those technologies themselves aren't inherently evil) isn't going to work.

--Joe

Re: From my vantage point (2, Interesting)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892970)

I see a GPL that prevents companies from using DRM (which wasn't around for v2) to get around GPL requirements. Basically those same requirements that we liked from v2.

The GPL does not require the licensor to allow the licensee to run modified code on particular hardware. It is not there, ergo it is not a requirement.

Arguments that it was an unintentional or unenvisioned loophole are wholly unpersuasive. RMS was fully aware that compiled code could be burned onto a PROM and incorporated into a hardware device to create a closed platform when he conceived of the GPL concept (whichever version you care to cite prior to the v3 draft). RMS was perfectly aware that the Xerox printer driver that so incensed him interfaced with Xerox printer software built into the printer. RMS, like most technically oriented computer users, also had to be aware that the PostScript software installed in various printers was more than simple firmware. RMS had ample opportunity to write the license that he intended, and he did not write the license that ought-to-have-been. Whatever his current stance, the license-that-is is the license that has gained such popularity and it now has a life independent of RMS and others of like mind.

You may not see a negative, but the business community certainly does. Considering that the business community is the one paying for support for GPLed software and purchasing GPL products, I fully expect to see GPL v2 versions of any commercializable collaborative apps exist far into the future. Whether you release particular code under GPL v3 or not, others can examine the code, document its interfaces, describe its processes, and rewrite it under GPL v2. Give RMS credit where credit is due, because he has created a software license that even he himself cannot defeat.

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892404)

First off, please forgive my ignorance, but is it really *that* important for Linus to decide to move Linux from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Just because version 3 of the license becomes available does not automatically invalidate the version 2 license does it? Why is this such a hot button issue?

I dunno. Maybe you should send Linus an email yourself and ask him: torvalds@osdl.org Please leave shark and laser references out of it, Ok?

most likely reply: I didn't hear RMS complain vehemently enough about GPLv3 so I figured it's fine.

Sweet! Zealot B.S. for the 7,000th time (5, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892448)

GPLv3 is closing loopholes, see the TiVo example, by which people could use other people's work and ignore their obligations under the license, i.e. by making the code modifiable but making modified versions of the code unrunnable.

If Linus is fine with TiVo's method of coopting the kernel and making it for all practical purposes unmodifiable, that's his business. But lots of other people have contributed code to free software and are not.

PS: this is how I understand it so far. My opinion is subject to revision

Re:Sweet! Zealot B.S. for the 7,000th time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892926)

How can modified versions be "unrunnable"? Only if you are choosing the wrong hardware to run your code on. Ex:

- I modify the TiVo code but it is "unrunnable" because the TiVo hardware doesn't run any code with a md5sum different from b8bc0c13ab3fe6c1727cf4a27b0204d2.

- I modify the iPod shuffle firmware to display the artist, but it is "unrunnable" because the iPod shuffle has no screen.

In both cases you are simply choosing the wrong hardware to run your code on.

Re:Sweet! Zealot B.S. for the 7,000th time (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893253)

They're only "loopholes" if everybody agrees they should be closed. Apparently that's not the case. Stallman is more principled whereas Torvalds is more pragmatic, so there are bound to be differences of opinion.

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892522)


First off, please forgive my ignorance, but is it really *that* important for Linus to decide to move Linux from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Just because version 3 of the license becomes available does not automatically invalidate the version 2 license does it? Why is this such a hot button issue?


I'm sure his mailbox is filled with GPLv3 questions, and of course he can't just ignore GPLv3 since I'm sure there will be attempts to add code to the kernel with this license. Seems that he is saying that GPLv3 code will not be accepted into to the kernel, at least with the license in it's current form. Hopefully the Linux kernel developers wil care as much about free licenses as OpenBSD.

Re:Couple of things here... (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892564)

For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.

Dude, copyright and patents are a political agenda by identity.

KFG

Re:Couple of things here... (2, Insightful)

Kaellenn (540133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892590)

You are correct.

But is that what a software license about? Or rather; should be about? In my eyes (and apparently in Linus' eyes as well) its about fostering open development because its a better way to do things, not pursuing an agenda.

You are correct but only (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892677)

If your reasons for choosing open development are pragmatic. If they are moral/ethical, then you might choose a less-efficient method of development.

Analogy: democracy, as it turns out, is pretty. Who'dathunkit? Monarchies & dictatorships are very efficient by comparison.

Did you know there are higher values than "efficiency"?

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892917)

But is that what a software license about?

Which part of "by identity" did you fail to understand?

KFG

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893131)

Well, these are the two camps.

The Free Software People want licenses that make the source available for social/political reasons, because they believe that the general purpose computer is too important a tool to allow anyone to control it.

The Open Source People want licenses that make the source available for practical reasons, because they believe that doing so makes for better software.

These are two seperate groups, and while their needs and aims often coincide, they don't always. Linus is an open source person, so he is leery of GPL3 because he suspects, rightly I think, that some of the changes will not make for better software. No surprises there.

Re:Couple of things here... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892596)

The thing is, Stallman's agenda is to make sure that things don't happen that will get in the way of free software, as well as open source software don't end up being pushed into obscurity by things like sofware patents and DRM. The GPLv3 will do that by leveraging our biggest asset, our source code to keep people from doing that.

The license will push the FSFs political agenda, but in a reactionary way. It isn't forcing you to use free software, it's forcing you to allow them to compete fairly.

One of the major benefits of switching to the GPLv3 would be that Linux and OpenSolaris would be able to share source code. I wish he would be more interested in GPLv3s development. I think his input would be valuable, and that his concerns are real. Plus the FSF could change it enough so he would accept it.

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

Phillip2 (203612) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892665)

"attemping to hide attempts to restrict developers"

RMS can be accused of many things, but rarely attempting to hide things. He's
always been active about describing his reasons.

The GPL is about politics. It always has been. So has GNU. This is what it is
for. FSF is attempting to change the way that an industry worth billions behaves.
How can this not be about politics?

Linus' postion is also about poltics, but a different sort of politics.

It's entirely reasonable to argue that the FSF position has the wrong sort
of politics, or a political position that you don't agree with, but to
criticise it for having a political position, per se, always seems nonsensical
to me.

Phil

Re:They didn't say you have to use GPLv3! (3, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892709)

For all of the FSF's talk against bad copyright policy and software restrictions, this license introduces their own set as if to say, "we don't like their way; so you should definitely do it our way instead."

RMS and the FSF aren't saying saying "All your old GPLv2's are invalid and now you must upgrade to our new GPLv3!!!"

They are giving developers the options to restrict what others from restricting the next guy down the line from doing something with their work.

You don't have to use GPLv3 if you don't want to.

If someone else releases their work with a GPLv3 license and it bothers you...

Then tough. The original author has the right to release it under any license he wants be it BSD, closed source, or GPL.

If Linus doesn't want to use GLPv3 then it is his right. He can keep v2 forever. The GPL license doesn't belong to RMS. He just made up the wording of the contract that others can use to release software with.

No one is being forced to anything they don't want to...

Well other than the people who are being restricted from adding DRM and various freedom restricting to other people's work released in GPLv3.

Well if you really want that DRM so bad... Then make your own program from scratch. Don't use someone elses open source code whose express wish is to not have his work used in ways he did not mean it to.

GPLv3 gives the original author this ability.

Zealotry can be good (4, Insightful)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892710)

Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.

Stallman repeatedly states that software freedom is his goal, and not its widespread adoption by "practical minded" corporations. He has nothing against corporations if they do not interfere with his primary goal. That make's him a zealot, I guess. I call it clear thinking. Time [gnu.org] and [gnu.org] again [newsforge.com] he has been proven correct in the face of criticism.

mod parent up (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892896)

I was this close to giving up. Thanks for the links, too. read a couple of 'em before, but they cheer me up anyway.

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

Iaughter (723964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892753)

[Stallman and the FSF] are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.

Free as in libre. Open source software is inherently political.

The bazaar development model itself is political [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Couple of things here... (3, Insightful)

Akoma The Immortal (36474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892975)

"Zealots" again. Why cant you just use another word to qualify Stallman actions? Like CONSISTENT with his beliefs, STEADY in his view of Free Software.

RMS did not change his views on developping software to empower users. The world of Open Source Software did and is in great danger of falling in the same trap again. This time DRM/DMCA and patents are the trap set by the corporations to gain control of OtherPeople IP (TM).

RMS does not force you to abide by his rules. You can use whatever license you want and he wont have a say about it. Give the same respect to him.

RMS does not call the proprietary leaders as "zealots", just "Hard Working Capitalist Businessmen Who Like to Ride the Curtains Of Other People IP (TM)". Shit he isn't even calling them or you anything.

Respect is the fondation for all civil discussion.

Regards,

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

codehead78 (452976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892977)

Stallman is pushing for GPL3 in Linux because it is the flagship OSS project. He was so caught up in his myopic B.S. crusade that he didn't think Linus would say no. When Linus said no, Stallman then made the classy move of suggesting other kernel hackers go against Linus' wishes and license their parts of the kernel as GPL3.

As Linus said, I don't need to recompile the kernel on my toaster or PVR. The FSF view does not scale well when it's not used against a monopoly. For RMS it was the UNIX monopoly, for this gen it's Microsoft. But when you use a software license to fight someone like TiVo, the cause doesn't seem as righteous... because they are just trying to make a buck. If the FSF really knew what was best for everyone then we wouldn't be discussing this, we'd be running the HURD kernel.

Re:Couple of things here... (1)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893237)

I don't think Stallman is pushing for GPL3 in Linux. I think he believes that GPL3 is a better license, unsurprisingly, but if Linus is against it, so what? the point of the free software movement is for there to be a free alternative to non-free software. GPL2 is certainly free, so the Linux kernel is going to remain free, and anyhow, won't Hurd go to GPL3 eventually?

The Tivo comment you make is surely a bit of a Troll? Sure, they're just trying to make a buck, and nothing wrong with that, but making a buck out of someone else's work is a less morally secure position.

GPL v3 makes compliance verifiable (5, Informative)

quentin_quayle (868719) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893102)

Suppose a vendor creates a distro, Blue Hat. It's designed for platform P but P is made to require binaries signed by Blue Hat, it won't run anything else. Now Blue Hat releases a body of source code and claims to have complied with GPL v.2.

Now has Blue Hat complied with GPL v.2? No one outside Blue Hat can know. The only way to verify that some source corresponds to the binary you're running is to compile it and run the result. If you can't do that without a key, and Blue Hat won't give you a suitable key, they could violate GPL with impunity.

It doesn't require that BH give up their ultimate private key, just one sufficient to sign source. This is all that GPL 3 requires in regard to DRM and keys.

Re:GPL v3 makes compliance verifiable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893175)

... or compile it for a common platform (PC), making necessary changes to account for hardware. Make your own hardware and start an identical company by simply removing the DRM keys and compiling to your interface.

Somewhat Dupe ... (5, Informative)

karvind (833059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892398)

Our earlier slashdot stories unless he explains more ..

Torvalds Explains Dislike For GPLv3 [slashdot.org]

Linus Says No GPLv3 for the Linux Kernel [slashdot.org]

Re:Somewhat Dupe ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893044)

The GPL v3 is aimed at ensuring that you always have the right to modify a GPL v3 program and still have it work as it did. That's all. It's rather unfortunate that lots of people hear the term "DRM" and immediately think of music/video piracy, because DRM is really about the control of applications, and preventing you from modifying them.

You see, one of the main aims of the GPL v3 is to stop Trusted Computing from being used *against* the owner of a machine. With the previous version of the GPL, it's quite possible for the likes of IBM to build computers based around Linux, which you cannot modify. You can't recompile the kernel, because the hardware will reject it, or at the very least report that it is "untrusted". You can't recreate the software because you can't sign the binary. You have lost the right to modify that program. DRM comes into it because DRM is all about preventing the modification of code and controlling the code that can access certain data (and, btw, need I remind you that code is also digital data and subject to DRM).

Stallman and the FSF have cut right to the heart of the DRM argument. It's a shame that so many, including Torvalds and lots of apparently smart people on Slashdot, haven't... and still think it's an argument over ripping DVDs and CDs.

The discussions over the GPL v3 are valuable in that regard, because they are flushing out all these issues into the open. None of the tech companies want to talk about it... including IBM and, I should add, Linux distributors like Red Hat. We must force them to.

Most popular OSS? (3, Interesting)

woobieman29 (593880) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892464)

From TFA: "Torvalds' opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world."

I'm not sure....would maybe Firefox have more overall users? Seems that it's on 80-90% of Linux boxes, plus an ever growing number of Windows machines and other OS's as well.

I was thinking gcc. (5, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892490)

Firefox is only on workstations -- headless servers typically won't have a web browser; my company's certainly don't. I was thinking gcc would be a better candidate: Not only is it installed on a strong majority of Linux-based systems, but also on a large number of traditional Unix systems elsewhere.

Re:I was thinking ftp (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892675)

Unfortinatly the BSD code in the Windows (ftp client etc.) is probably the most widely distributed open code. (The GNU coreutils must also beat gcc, but don't forget all the embedded devices that may be running vertually nothing on top of Linux)

Re:I was thinking gcc. (1)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892693)

Firefox is only on workstations -- headless servers typically won't have a web browser; my company's certainly don't.

I'm sure meant "graphical webbrowser" ;-) The default install of OpenBSD has lynx installed, though I don't use it often, it's very handy when you need some kind of web browser, like reading docs that is in html format.

Yeh, I thought so too but (2, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892719)

Like I remember installing Ubuntu once and gcc wasn't on it. Some other nontechnical-user-oriented distros I've seen were like that. They assume you'll use package managers to do everything?

Re:I was thinking gcc. (1)

bigpat (158134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893059)

Firefox is only on workstations -- headless servers typically won't have a web browser

"popular" is a measure of how many people would be using it, not how many installations. I think firefox is used directly by more people than linux, unless you count the fact that google uses linux and more people use google than they do firefox. So, yes Linux does win the popularity contest, just the people voting don't know it.

Re:Most popular OSS? (1)

pcmanjon (735165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892530)

"I'm not sure....would maybe Firefox have more overall users? Seems that it's on 80-90% of Linux boxes, plus an ever growing number of Windows machines and other OS's as well."

The article was written by a poor journalist. The theme of the article hovers around GPL3 -- so I believe its context was meant in that of "Most popular GPL program"

Firefox is not released under the GPL.

I would be willing to bet that xfree/xorg are more popular though, being on Solaris, BSD, Linux and more boxes. GCC is also another possible contender. What linux-like machine doesn't have GCC?

Re:Most popular OSS? (1)

PipeIsArt (800028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892537)

An interesting point, but you might have forgotten about all the business servers that run Linux and do not have a front-end. Even if the end-user count is greater for Firefox than for Linux, all Linux-based projects (Debian, Suse, Ubuntu, Xfce, etc) have an oeverwhelmingly greater amount of people working on them than Firefox. As mentioned earlier, is FSF just seeking Linus's opinion for good PR? Or is it because GPLv3 would die quickly without his support?

Re:Most popular OSS? (1)

null_session (137073) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892607)

I was thinking it would be Apache ... It's standard on almost every UNIX and UNIX like system out there.

Re:Most popular OSS? (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892684)

I'm not sure....would maybe Firefox have more overall users? Seems that it's on 80-90% of Linux boxes, plus an ever growing number of Windows machines and other OS's as well.

I noticed that too. A better phrase would be that Linux is "the program most responsible for popularizing the GPL."

Re:Most popular OSS? (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893120)

Firefox just recently passed the 150 million download mark [spreadfirefox.com] .

Redhat alone sold 215,000 sold 215,000 Linux licenses [itjungle.com] in just the 2nd quarter of 2005.

Think outside of your tiny world of single-pc households and do the math. There are a lot more Linux installations than there are Firefox installations.

A Brief Question of Fact re: "Most Popular" (-1, Redundant)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892480)

TFA: "Torvalds' opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world"

Is that actually true? Does that mean talked-about? What about Firefox? Or something like gcc?

Re:A Brief Question of Fact re: "Most Popular" (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892699)

I would imagine the Linux kernel is used on more computers (desktop + servers) than Firefox and gcc isn't actually a requirement for a lot of the cited platforms that it runs on. Saying the Linux kernel is the most popular open source program might be incorrect, but I don't think we can know for sure that any others beat it without an actual accurate survey

community split (2, Interesting)

slackaddict (950042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892511)

I've read several other articles that point to the impending split within the OSS community. We've got the fringe OSS purist element on one side and the business community on the other side. The fringe element doesn't want anything commercial tainting OSS and the business community wants OSS to play with commercial products and technologies.

I don't think it's a matter of right and wrong, but a battle of ideas between purist "ivory tower" types and the real-world that has legitimate needs for OSS and the business community to work together. Like I said before, if you think that businesses like IBM have purely altruistic motives for supporting Linux and OSS then you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Businesses have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money. Linux/OSS is a means to an end. But in the meantime, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Simple solution (1)

Urusai (865560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892683)

Instead of calling it GPLv3, make it PRPLv1 (People's Revolutionary Public License) or whatever. It kind of obviates the problem. Linus is right in regard to the GPL being about (in probably most people's minds) open exchange of software, not some kind of general libertarian revolution. Restricting use of the software in other ways is a major step that should be a different license.

Re:community split (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892730)

Can we please not mix up commercial with proprietary. It's really not that hard if you really concentrate :P

Not a matter of Right and Wrong? (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892771)

Then don't call the people who hold one of the two opinions "fringe", and associate them with disparaging metaphors like ivory towers, and imply that they don't know how to function in the real world, and ... and ... and ...

Fallen hero or lone wolf? (3, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892772)

You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version. And that's my gripe.

Call me a fanatic, but open source isn't worth crap if it can't be redistributed. This is _THE_ principle of open source, that anyone can make AND RUN their own version. There are business-ready licenses out there, but the GPL was made to perpetuate the programmers' and users' freedom.

I think Linus needs a reality check. Perhaps a few months of working for Microsoft will make him realize his mistakes. There ARE evil people, evil corporations trying to take over the world, just look at the patent business.

I'm kinda disappointed after reading this, I always had seen Linus as a hero, and thought he was as enthusiastic about open source as many of us were. Sad to see he's just yet another programmer who went corporate, like Steve Jobs. He just happened to cooperate with the open source movement.

Oh well. We should be thankful he's still cooperating, and consider him an ally rather than a leader.

Re:Fallen hero or lone wolf? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892879)

open source isn't worth crap if it can't be redistributed

BSD's seem to be doing just fine.

Re:Fallen hero or lone wolf? (1)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893240)

>>open source isn't worth crap if it can't be redistributed

>BSD's seem to be doing just fine.

Not according to Netcraft. :P

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Re:Fallen hero or lone wolf? (1)

rkanodia (211354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893077)

Sad to see he's just yet another programmer who went corporate, like Steve Jobs. He just happened to cooperate with the open source movement.

There are so many mistakes, I don't even know where to start.

Re:Fallen hero or lone wolf? (1)

FrostedChaos (231468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893248)

Call me a fanatic, but open source isn't worth crap if it can't be redistributed. This is _THE_ principle of open source, that anyone can make AND RUN their own version. There are business-ready licenses out there, but the GPL was made to perpetuate the programmers' and users' freedom.

Ok, but back in the real world, there are devices that can't even be modified. If you ever want companies to ship Linux on toasters, they better be able to distribute a non-modifiable version suitable to the hardware. Even if it's "politically incorrect."

I think Linus needs a reality check. Perhaps a few months of working for Microsoft will make him realize his mistakes. There ARE evil people, evil corporations trying to take over the world, just look at the patent business.

I think YOU need a reality check. Linus can't fix the patent system in the United States and elsewhere by himself, no matter what license he adopts. He can't repeal the DMCA either.

Anyway, Linus is not "just another programmer," and he never "went corporate". He's always been in it for the love of the work, unlike some other open source leaders I could name.
The consequence has generally been that his code has been of a much higher quality!
Compare the kernel code with the code for emacs, or configure scripts.

Commercial vs. Proprietary (4, Insightful)

mengel (13619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892899)

You're falling for the classic confusion here (which the FSF "purists" are trying to correct) that doing commercial software somehow requires being proprietary.

The FSF folks would be ecstatic to have busnesses actually embrace the open source model, be commercial, and sell lots and lots of support, installation, and maintenance for software that is still modifiable by the end customer.

People keep trying to paint the FSF folks as anti-commercial, or anti-business. They are most assuredly not. They are trying to educate companies and the public about a better way to do software, whether as a business or not.

And neither companies nor people should adopt FSF principals out of altruism. They should adopt them because they realize that once customers understand what the free software rights really do for them, they will begin to demand them by not doing business with companies that don't grant them. Just as you wouldn't buy a car from a dealer if you could only ever get it fixed at that dealership (for whatever rates they choose to charge), you will stop buying software that can only be modified by that software company. It doesn't mean you won't go to the dealer for some or all repairs, it just means you don't want to be forced to.

Of course, pushing the car analogy, this only really happens when you become aware of local car repair companies. And this is where companies like IBM can really help -- by offering the "Jiffy Lube" of free software -- a national, well known chain of software maintenance, configuration, and repair for open source.

See the crusaders march (0, Flamebait)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892520)

So web services built on OSS that don't release the code are not REALLY in compliance? What's next. Do employees get the source code for their payroll system if it runs on Linux?

GNU/Linux kernel? (5, Interesting)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892535)

I wonder if Linus even has the real authority to unilaterly switch to an alternative license. I don't think so. By his own admission he is not a deep thinker about the philosophical (he says polical) part of the job. Many of his colleagues are. Any change would have to be accepted by the core kernel developers. If not a fork is all but inevitable (GNU/Linux anyone?). My guess is he will talk like this from time to time but will be under pressure to maintain the status quo.

Re:GNU/Linux kernel? (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892748)

Linus can't unilaterally change the license, but nor can it be forked with another license since the kernel is GPLv2 with no "or later" clause. Unless the entire kernel community wants to rewrite every part of the kernel that Linus has touched since its inception, Linus will get the last word on the license. The whole argument is mostly moot since they couldn't possibly get all the contributors to agree to change the license anyway.

Crap, another question ...I have a lot to learn (5, Informative)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892551)

GPLv3 code "crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version"

If I understand it right, and I prolly don't, you can install any modified version whatsoever on your sharks. Your obligations re: making keys available etc. do not kick in until you distribute the modified version. i.e. if you're a shark salesman rather than a mad scientist.

Is that right?

MOD PARENT UP (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892773)

Yes! I'm confused as to how Linus gets this part wrong. Mad scientists (or the military, or Microsoft, etc.) can use modified GPLv3 code however they want. However, if they try to distribute the code to the public (they sell software, or hardware with software on it), then they have to make it possible for the recipients to:

1. See the code.
2. Modify the code.
3. Run the modified code.

Private shark zoos are not subject to any restriction. Shark salesmen, however, would be required to make the source available, so that you could modify the way your shark-laser system works.

The TiVo example is a better one. If I buy a TiVo, and it uses GPL code, then I should be able to modify that code and run the modified code on that hardware. Their modifications are functionally useless to me (to the world) if I cannot run the modified code on the hardware. Yes, in theory I could build my own TiVo from scratch... but that's not practical. So why should GPL programmers license their code that way?

Cool, thanks. Followup: (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892866)

Am I correct about what exactly TiVo did?
-grabbed whatev version of the kernel
-modified it, presumably to use their hardware efficiently
-made their code available somehow, in accord w/GPLv2 obligations
but
-included a secret key or something so that only TiVo's code actually works TiVos? i.e. there's nowhere to test/run your modified version of it?

Ignore him. (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892603)

Linus isn't an activist. He's just a programmer. Sure, he made a wonderful kernel, but it's the GPL that made his kernel popular and freely-downloadable.

In any case, does it really matter if he redistributes his kernel under GPL2 or 3? It's not like it's the end of the world or anything. I think this is plainly media hype.

Re:Ignore him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892707)

Bullshit. A license agreement in its own power can't make anything popular.

That's like saying the development of a piece of software is less significant than the EULA it forces you to agree with.

Re:Ignore him. (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892859)

That's like saying the development of a piece of software is less significant than the EULA it forces you to agree with.

The GPL is *NOT* an EULA! It's a DISTRIBUTION LICENSE!

If Linus had released his kernel under a proprietary non-free license, nobody would've ever heard of it. I'm not saying that linux is inferior to the GPL, but that the GPL contributed A LOT to its success.

Re:Ignore him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892905)

What I'm saying is that you can't give so much credit to a group of people who do nothing but write a distribution license that's getting increasingly preachy.

Linux could have been just as successful if Linus wrote "do whatever the hell you want with it." No GPL needed.

Re:Ignore him. (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893046)

"What I'm saying is that you can't give so much credit to a group of people who do nothing but write a distribution license that's getting increasingly preachy."

You had a valid point unitl you said that (IMHO) opinion.

The FSF/GNU project has done a hell of a lot more [fsf.org] then just write a distribution license.

In fact I would go so far to say that the pre 1.0 version of the Linux kernel would have had an interest level of 0 attached to if it were not for the widely availbale, free tools that people used to improve Linux into something that people could actually use. (gcc & friends, binutils, etc.)

Preaching is what Stallman does. You can love it, hate it or ignore it and get back to programming. But a lot of us, when we get back to programming, have Stallman to thnak for the tools we are using.

Re:Ignore him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892832)

"In any case, does it really matter if he redistributes his kernel under GPL2 or 3? It's not like it's the end of the world or anything."

Bringing back slavery wouldn't be the end of the world either, but it still does matter.

Re:Ignore him. (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892864)

Comparing Slavery to a GPLv2 to GPLv3 switch? rofl.

Re:Ignore him. (1)

glib909 (623480) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892893)

Sure, he made a wonderful kernel, but it's the GPL that made his kernel popular and freely-downloadable.

Hmm ... maybe not necessairly. What OSS licenses besides the GPL would have been prohibitive to it having become as popular as it has become?

I'm just curious, here.

Re:Ignore him. (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893002)

Linus isn't an activist. He's just a programmer.

This is what I was thinking as well. I find it somwhat contradictary that at the end he says "I just worry about kernel bugs" after going off on little idiosyncracies of the first draft of something, and they'll likely change before the final.

Re:Ignore him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893228)

Yes, let's ignore him. When he licensed the Linux kernel under the GPL he gave up all rights and interests in it to the FSF. Linus intent in choosing the GPL and his opinion on the use of the code he wrote doesn't matter, only what WE want matters. Screw the programmers, we own the code now and don't need them anymore.

This just in GPLv4 = Sea bass (5, Funny)

drrck (959788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892636)

Due to the public outcry GPLv4 will no longer include sharks with laser beams. They have been replaced with Sea Bass. Extremely ill-tempered sea bass.

I agree with RMS on patents but disagree on DRM (4, Interesting)

FlorianMueller (801981) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892671)

For a long time it seemed to me that a distinction between Free Software and Open Source was hair-splitting: the key open source programs were Free Software at the same time. Now there are two trends that suggest a distinction may be increasingly necssary:

  • Oracle et al. try to acquire open-source projects by buying up the companies behind them.
  • IBM and like-minded large players try to effectively control open source based on their huge patent portfolios. Companies like Nokia sometimes say it pretty directly that they believe patents enable them to potentially open-source some code while still retaining ownership.

Looking at those disconcerting trends, I very much support the GPL v3's approach to software patents. But when it comes to DRM, I think the FSF goes too far and addresses an issue for philosophical reasons that isn't worth it. DRM is a lot more legitimate per se than software patents are. Categorically opposing DRM may be perceived as downright anti-commercial by a number of people, and it's a move that I fear will only hurt the FSF and the GPL without changing anything about the fact that DRM is here to stay.

Re:I agree with RMS on patents but disagree on DRM (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892916)

You seem to be making the same mistake that I see time and time again on Slashdot and other geek sites. You assume that DRM is about protecting music and video. It's not. DRM is all about controlling applications, not data. Data doesn't do anything... code does. To implement DRM you must control what *exact* piece of code can access a piece of data -- and refuse access if it is not authorised (ie. it has not been signed by a controlling authority).

In short, in a "Trusted Computing" world (which is what the GPL v3 is directly aimed at mitigating) your applications are checked that they don't do anything that the key controller doesn't want you to do (could literally be anything at all), then signed and authorised by a central authority.

Trusted computing and DRM is about stopping you from modifying and recompiling code. It's that simple. Stallman and FSF understand this, but there are lots of computer geeks who still can't quite grasp the breadth of what DRM and trusted computing is and what it will do. It's about time they realised.

Re:I agree with RMS on patents but disagree on DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892999)

DRM is a lot more legitimate per se than software patents are.

DRM will become a requirement if it is allowed to get a foothold, I oppose black-box binaries and this is why DRM needs to be opposed wherever possible. Go and re-read stallman's right to read and be thankful you can still boot into an OS on commodity hardware without having to deal some patented DRM interface.

Re:I agree with RMS on patents but disagree on DRM (1)

argel (83930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893063)

Categorically opposing DRM may be perceived as downright anti-commercial by a number of people, and it's a move that I fear will only hurt the FSF and the GPL without changing anything about the fact that DRM is here to stay.

Fact? Why don't we give the FSF the chance to fight the good fight and see how it turns out? Do any of us really want to see a corporate dominated DRM world? The FSF already has a good track record (e.g. GCC, Perl, and Linux all use the GPL) so lets not write them off yet.

Re:I agree with RMS on patents but disagree on DRM (1)

Fahrenheit 450 (765492) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893161)

Erm... I may be way out of the times here, but doesn't Perl use the Artistic license?

Complex philosophy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893110)

Apologies to Bad Analogy Guy here, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say I think this falls into a general class of "NP complete" philosophical problems manifesting itself all across the board right now. And maybe theres a common cause?

1) Hate speech
2) Cryptography
3) Openness

It boils down to "you can't have your cake and eat it".

"I may not agree with what he says but I'll defend his right to say it", isn't that axiomatic to free speech?
But no longer in the UK, as we have some pretty draconian and chilling laws against 'hate speech' appearing.
Why? It seems the onus is now on the publisher not to imply rather than the responsibility being with the reader not to infer.

Same with Cryptography and open source licencing, there's a kind of duality that wants to have openness and control at the same time. Yet they are mutually exclusive. Business and State both require it and are damned by it.

Same here with RMS, Torvalds is right, you can't be Free and start adding caveats against the people you don't like or who might abuse Freedom.

In the end I see two forces at work. A failure of equitable Law, and a diminishing tolerance of others in society.
The causes of this are unchecked abuse of power and bad laws.

In the end we are going to have to choose between 3 directions, ever more open and connected society, increasingly closed, opressive and secretive one, or a feudal and fragmented world with two distinct cultures that are utterly incompatible.

There is an enormous price for freedom, it is called RESPONSIBILTY and it seems a lot of people are afraid they cant handle it.

Re:Complex philosophy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893188)

Same here with RMS, Torvalds is right, you can't be Free and start adding caveats against the people you don't like or who might abuse Freedom.

Then he shouldn't have used the GPL in the first place, since it starts out by using restrictions to ensure freedom. The GPL v3 is *completely* consistent with the aims of the FSF -- to ensure that you can always modify the program and still use it for the same purpose. Programmer freedom.

Torvald's problem is that he speaks for OSDL (who pay his wages and protecting him from SCO and other assorted IP lawyers) who get their money and lawyers from tehe likes of IBM and HP... corps who *do* want to make versions of Linux that they "own" by signing them and having the hardware enforce their ownership -- effectively making the Linux kernel de facto proprietary.

Re:Complex philosophy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893222)

The GPL is a copyright license, the anti-DRM language in V3 will preserve the spirit of the GPL. GPL3 is what a copyleft license must become with the advent of digital restrictions management. If certain companies are not planning on using DRM to undermine free software, why are we seeing propoganda such as this in the business press?

The noise tells me that Stallman is right on target.

From the article... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892708)

Right at the end:

  Are you participating in the GPLv3 process?

No, I'm not actively involved. And it's not so much because I couldn't be, it's more because I just can't find it in me to care too deeply. I'm the kind of person who hates office politics. I'm pretty happy with the GPLv2, and I just don't have the motivation or inclination to start talking to lawyers. I'm a programmer. I worry about kernel bugs.

GPLv3 is not anti DRM. (3, Insightful)

Stalyn (662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892791)

GPLv3 is anti-evil-DRM in which the GPL would be circumvented by DRM methods. Such as providing you with the source code by unable to compile/run it because of DRM. Yet GPLv3 as I understand it does not say you can not include DRM in your software, you are free to do so.

I just find Linus too trusting of business. You would think he would have learned his lesson with BitKeeper but in the end I think he blames Andrew Tridgell instead of BitMover. Even RMS may be too distrusting of business, but isn't it better to be safer than sorry?

Bitkeeper anyone? (4, Insightful)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 8 years ago | (#14892799)

Why the facination with Mr. T's thoughts on the GPL? He really isn't that big of a believer in Open Source. It just happened to be the vehicle that propelled him to fame. IT IS HIS RIGHT TO NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT OPEN SOURCE!

But what is this thing that /. seems to have about pretending there is this big NEW rift in the open source movement with Stalmans GPL v3? There is no rift, you have Stallman who is a believer, and Linus, who couldn't really give a crap as long as he can keep working unencumbered. That is why he chose bitkeeper, again, that is his right, as long as he does not pose as an Opensource poster boy(I don't think he usually does).

Re:Bitkeeper anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892847)

If it's not free software, it's not worth using. I want my freedom in the form of the GPL and nothing else. Until something comes along that is even more corporate unfriendly, the GPL works for me. The adoption of free software should not be focused on for-profit companies, but on the people, the consumers.

Re:Bitkeeper anyone? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893008)

The trouble is that Linus is the poster boy for the Open Source Movement, which is a thing distinct from the Free Software movement started by RMS. And it seems that, to surprisingly many people (from the leaders of IBM right down to the average Slashdotter) the idea of "Open Source" is a lot more palatable than "Free Software." As a result, many people have lost sight of the fundamental problems that Free Software was conceived to address. Linus, by his own admission, doesn't care about those problems, and precisely because his program is so widely used, people tend to listen to him, perhaps more than they should.

Re:Bitkeeper anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14893073)

Linux is big of a believer in Open Source,
not for political reasons,
but for engineering reasons.

More Forbes FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14892862)

Well, Linus should know better than talking to Forbes. I'm waiting for the report claiming that Stallman didn't really author the GPL because that would crack me up more than previous smears. [com.com] These pathetic attempts to spread disinformation about GPL3 are probably tied to the anti-DRM sentiments that are sure to be expressed in the final revision. Consumers don't want DRM and the fuckers pushing it rightly fear a consumer backlash so they stoke the PR fire and break out the shills in an underhand attempt to confuse the argument. Did I leave anything out there?


Create all the confusion you want guys, the world does not want DRM.

On the wrong side of the battle (4, Interesting)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14893184)

Morally, Linus is on the wrong side of the DRM battle, since he supports it (and is willing to be used as a PR pawn by Forbes), however Pragmatically, he's on the right side of the battle, since DRM is ineveitable and perhaps by doing their bidding, the robber barons^W^W business world will allow him to continue living^w coding.

Stallman may be right morally, but so was John The Baptist; and look at what happened to him.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?