| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Sorry?Sorry?Posted Apr 7, 2006 20:50 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: Sorry? by BrucePerens Parent article: Bruce Perens: State of Open Source "FSF did absolutely everything possible to enfranchise objection, establishing 4 big discussion groups" (1) Are you saying that offering "channels for enfranchising objections" somehow makes it inappropriate to offer public opinions when asked? (2) How "enfranchising" is it when the rules are "You can make any comments you like. However, the final decision is RMS's." I guess the dictionary definition allows it (we're being afforded "the privileges of citizenship"), but clearly this particular citizenry includes more than one level of privilege. (3) Assuming that Linus was saying "I think Tivo-ization is OK" (and his follow-up comments certainly make it appear that that's what he believes), do you really believe there's a hope in Hell that RMS would allow that in the new version, given that a large part of his public speaking on the new draft has been about how important it is to avoid Tivo-ization?
(Log in to post comments)
Lame Excuses Posted Apr 8, 2006 21:42 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] How "enfranchising" is it when the rules are, "you can make any patches you like but Linus Torvalds makes the final decision"? Plenty of people manage to convince themselves that they're not too cool to participate under those circumstances and no one gets sympathy with excuses like "a patch will most likely be rejected anyway so why bother preparing one?" What makes speculation about what RMS will eventually agree to any less lame? And what prevented Linus Torvalds from offering his point of view to the Free Software Foundation when they asked that didn't apply when Forbes came calling?
Did I say Linus needed "sympathy"? Posted Apr 10, 2006 6:15 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] On this particular issue (Tivo-ization), I don't believe RMS has an open mind or is willing to compromise. If circumstances prove me wrong, I'll apologize. That's not to say the detailed wording won't change to fix some of the current problems, but nothing that would allow what Linus said he believed should be allowed.
I have no idea whether Linus offered his opinions through the FSF mechanisms or directly to the principals. It's his right to choose to do so or not, just as it's RMS's and Eben Moglen's right to evangelize the FSF point of view outside that process - I don't see them restricting themselves to comments through "the process". For that matter, Bruce criticized Linus for speaking outside the process immediately after himself declaring the current draft unusable, outside the process.
I also have no idea whether the FSF approched Linus directly for an opinion, as Forbes did, beyond the general announcement that the site was available. I hope they did, but have no direct knowledge.
In any case, there are comments on the FSF site from various others who agree with Linus's position, so the point-of-view is not unrepresented...
More Lame Excuses Posted Apr 11, 2006 2:19 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] All of that completely misses the point. No one is disputing free speech rights or advocating censorship. Nor is the problem in this case that some opinions might be unrepresented in the feedback process. Regardless of what Torvalds might think about Stallman, snubbing him in response to evidence of open mindedness is counterproductive. And since compromise requires sacrifice on both sides, someone who refuses to come to the table without assurance that a particular position will ultimately be adopted doesn't occupy the moral high ground. Someone who wanted good results, rather than cheap media attention, would have made an honest effort.
Unlike Perens, who emphasized the positive aspects of the GPLv3 process, Torvalds allowed his reputation to be used by Forbes for sensational purposes and created public relations problems the Free Software Foundation doesn't need. That's a poor substitute for direct communication and an oddly political gesture from a fellow who claims to hate politics. Alan Cox demonstrates how a person who actually doesn't want to stir up drama handles things by refusing to predict what license the kernel will use in the future on the basis of an unfinished draft and pointing out that the kernel developers will eventually make a choice as a community.
All of this should be easy to grasp for anyone who isn't determined to think of Stallman and the GNU GPL in negative terms regardless of the circumstances.
No excuses required Posted Apr 11, 2006 5:15 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "Refusing to come to the table without assurance that a particular position will ultimately be adopted" is different from declining to butt one's head against an immovable object. I'm not here to bash Stallman. He's allowed to have a fixed position on an issue and he's earned the right to decide what the terms of his organization's license are. I think he's being gracious and sensible in setting up an inclusive process for reviewing and refining the language of the license.
I agree with you that Linus probably meant to be dramatic and sensational - to be the larger-than-life Linus character rather than a humble technologist. So what? You say it's "counterproductive". That might be true if his goal was to get the final GPLv3 as close to his preferences as possible. On the other hand, if he is convinced that on this one, key issue it will be impossible to get an acceptable GPLv3, then his definition of "productive" might be more in terms of building mindshare for the notion that conversion to what emerges from the GPLv3 is not inevitable.
|
|
||||||||||||