Linus' comments on GPLv3 [LWN.net]

Linus' comments on GPLv3

Posted Apr 7, 2006 1:17 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421)
In reply to: Bruce Perens: State of Open Source by penguin
Parent article: Bruce Perens: State of Open Source

No, Linus' comments were a knee-jerk flame that exhibited a total misunderstanding of the text of the license. He somehow got the idea that the FSF wanted to prohibit developers from signing code with private keys, when the FSF only wants to prohibit requiring private keys to run the code.

To make constructive criticism or to participate in rational discourse, one must first understand the thing that one is criticizing, and Linus clearly failed to make the effort to do so here. (Even if the text of the license were vague enough to include Linus' interpretation, which I don't think it was, he should have simply suggested a clearer wording—the GPLv3 rationale made it abundantly clear that this was not the FSF's intent.)

(Log in to post comments)

Linus' comments on GPLv3

Posted Apr 7, 2006 3:32 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Hm. Are you sure a January 27 comment illustrates what he still thinks. Eben implies that there is now a behind-the-scenes dialogue.

Linus' comments on GPLv3

Posted Apr 7, 2006 4:12 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]

I hadn't heard that...I couldn't find any more recent public comments by Linus, but would be happy to hear differently.

At the April 1 FSF annual member's meeting, both RMS and Eben were asked several times about whether they thought the Linux kernel would switch to GPLv3 and whether this was important, and as I recall both of them mostly declined to speculate. Eben said only that he hoped that all GPL users would switch as a matter of course because v3 will be so obviously a better GPL.

Linus' comments on GPLv3

Posted Apr 7, 2006 11:24 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

I think that Linus's comments were more of STFU on the mailing list then anything else.

Seemed like a smart move. I'd would of liked to think I would of done the same thing.

Think about it... Does the Linux kernel realy need to get into a licensing war with it's kernel developers? So Linus choose the safe path (stick with GPL2) and stuck with it so that you wouldn't have people starting to around and threating to fork and such or getting into idiotic psuedo-legallese battles instead of actually working on code and getting all pissed off and worked up over something that, at this time, is not that important in Linux kernel-land.

As a leader you have to be willing to make quick judgements and then stick with them. It's part of a trick of making people get along.

Later on I figure when things settle out a bit and the GPLv3 is a reality rather then a discussion point. Then Linus will probably make a more sound judgement on the matter. Even if he chooses to stick GPLv2-only I figure it would be very possible that if enough developers had good enough reasons to convince most people to dual license it or whatnot I think that he'd go for it.

It's part of being a manager, I figure.

making excuses for Linus

Posted Apr 7, 2006 15:46 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]

I think you're trying too hard to make excuses for Linus...

Don't you think that better way to keep people "actually working on code" and not "getting pissed off" would be to say simply, "It's too early to tell, let's wait until GPLv3 is finalized and released?" Or better, "if you have concerns, take them to the GPLv3 committees rather than the linux-kernel mailing list—that's what I'm going to do."

Do you honestly think that calling the GPLv3 "insane" and "obviously not usable", or saying that it tries to "force people to bow to our superior God," helps people to "get along" and avoids a "licensing war?"

As for equating "leadership" to making snap judgements and then sticking to them regardless of the facts or the persuasiveness of opposing arguments, I find that appalling (but all too typical of recent times).