FSF is creating a problem that never existed!
Posted Oct 2, 2006 18:14 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim
In reply to: FSF is creating a problem that never existed!
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
> I'm sad that the FSF is creating a problem in free software projects
> where none existed before: the GPLv3 process is polarizing the community
> along moral lines that were artificially injected into the GPLv3 draft.
Ingo, I am deeply respectful of your work, but the party who released an inflamatory statement, backed by a 30-people informal private closed poll¹, taking pride in its refusal to participate in any discussion, is not the one you point out.
"But it we had discussed they wouldn't have listened to us anyway" is kindergarten-level excuse.
Also when a select few argument it was "obvious" GPL v2 = open source and != free software², I can only wonder in what hole they've been living these past years, and why they never bothered to inform all the people feeding them patches and testing about this strange opinion. As someone who did all those things for years, discovering I've been lied to and it was actually a BSD after all is quite offensive.
You've been using the FSF license for years, and people have been working with you knowing this (sometimes because of this) so you're in the same boat as the FSF whether you like it or not. Please stop this blind FSF bashing this is the only self-destructive madness I see.
Last I've heard, no one, least of all the FSF, pretended the FSF had the legal ability to unilaterally change the Linux kernel license. But I *am* seeing some people claiming ability to unilaterally stop the free software community³ from thinking about updating its main license, and so convinced of their holy right they're not even bothering to contruct any sensible argument.
Who do you think is losing credibility fast these days ?
¹ and even then not everyone of those little few agreed to sign the statement
² yes, someone actually claimed this
³ which is not limited to the people contributing to the Linux kernel, not that this smaller population was even consulted before statements where put out in its name
to post comments)