| |||||||||||||
FSF is creating a problem that never existed!FSF is creating a problem that never existed!Posted Oct 2, 2006 18:14 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)In reply to: FSF is creating a problem that never existed! by mingo Parent article: Busy busy busybox
> I'm sad that the FSF is creating a problem in free software projects
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
(Log in to post comments)
FSF is creating a problem that never existed! Posted Oct 2, 2006 18:33 UTC (Mon) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Well said!
FSF is creating a problem that never existed! Posted Oct 2, 2006 20:06 UTC (Mon) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] sorry, but the only non-personal-attack point i could make out from your post was this one: 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. (if you had any other arguments then please repeat them without any slant, side-kick or accusation. Thanks!) and even this one misrepresents what i said. The kernel is under a GPLv2-only license, and as such outside of the reach of the FSF. But as an amusing sidenote, the FSF did try to claim behind the scenes that: 1) Linus did not really mean it when he has put "this license only" into the COPYING file, or 2) that main contributors have the ability to relicense the kernel to GPLv3 without the consent of all contributors, and without the consent of Linus in particular. Most of the 350+ million lines of code codebase i referred to is currently under a "GPLv2 or later" license, and yes, i contributed to some of that codebase too, not only to the GPLv2-only kernel. Also, even as a kernel developer i do worry about the future of free software in general. Have i understood your point correctly, that you deny that the FSF has unilateral legal power to change the contribution dynamics of that huge codebase? (But i dont really expect any response to the essence of my posts - as i didnt get any response once i got down to the boring details of reality in other discussions. I have yet to see a single proponent of the GPLv3 who is willing to argue it through fairly and objectively, without calling names or avoiding topics once the discussion gets uncomfortable to them. I might be surprised positively and i might have to concede that i was wrong all along, but that has yet to happen.)
FSF is creating a problem that never existed! Posted Oct 2, 2006 22:18 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] > The kernel is under a GPLv2-only license, and as such outside of the> reach of the FSF
So no one dragged the kernel developpers in the debate, they could work with the FSF on its new project, or ignore it altogether.
I see your point on non-kernel code, but you know, I don't find claiming a position of authority as a core kernel developper to discuss the problems of other projects much more tasteful than what the evil things FSF is supposed to have done.
> Have i understood your point correctly, that you deny that the FSF has
IANAL so I won't speculate on the value in international IP law of a license preamble. Especially if you add a vague "contribution dynamics" to the mix (though a judge would probably agree that any person following Linux development knew perfectly well what "GPLv2 or later" meant after the numerous "GPLv2-only" clarification messages of Linus)
Moraly, as far as I know the GPL v3 is perfectly consistent with the GNU manifesto, so should the FSF relicense code which has been assigned to them to the GPLv3, I don't see who could honestly complain (of course legally the FSF can relicense it to whatever it wants to)
Practically, for code which hasn't been assigned to them the FSF can at most argue they're allowed to create a GPLv3 fork, and this fork won't fly unless :
(true both on the enforcing license and maintaining code front)
And this is mostly how big decisions are taken in FLOSS forks anyway. The orbital laser power of the "GPLv2 or later" clause seems greatly overrated to me (except for simplifying the management of past or minor contributions). The basic rule doesn't change a FLOSS fork which pisses of its contributors is a dead fork.
On the dynamics front, should the FSF write a pleasing license, it will certainly impact the contribution dynamics of both new and existing projects. IIRC one of the "GPLv2-only" clarification messages Linus wrote argued that :
So I certainly do not agree with the idea the GPLv2-covered codebase is so big it's impossible to pull a GPLv3, even for the Linux kernel.
Nevertheless what ultimately counts is the quality of the actual GPLv3 text. Arguing about things the FSF may or may not have said (and never enacted) behind the scenes is pointless. There's an easy way out for everyone to get a good GPLv3 out of the door. The FSF already pulled its baby past the point where a little flaming could kill it.
FSF is creating a problem that never existed! Posted Oct 2, 2006 23:54 UTC (Mon) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] So I certainly do not agree with the idea the GPLv2-covered codebase is so big it's impossible to pull a GPLv3, even for the Linux kernel. Oh, as long as it's on a voluntary basis, once the GPLv3 is known, so that people can do an informed decision based on its true contents, for either new contributions or for relicensed old contributions, i'm perfectly on your side. But that voluntary basis is not actually what the GPLv3 does. What it does is it retrospectively affects a huge codebase and it potentially makes it "half-incompatible" with GPLv3 projects, which incompatibility is fundamentally slated in favor of GPLv3 projects: by not allowing fixes to be backmerged from GPLv3 codebases into "GPLv2 or later" codebases - even if the code originated from the "GPLv2 or later" codebase.
FSF is creating a problem that never existed! Posted Oct 3, 2006 6:56 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] The "can not go back" aspect of the GPLv3 is the same as the GPLv2 so the GPLv3 is no worse in this regard than the v2.
That the possibility of relicensing v2 code to v3 exists is an accident of history, namely the FSF writing a great license which has served well many projects. That is has the authority to lead many persons in this fork is a consequence of them trying to wrangle with the legal problems of FLOSS software while others wouldn't be bothered with them.
On the whole even if the FSF exerts this fork-"right" hostilely (which it hasn't so all this is "trial of intentions" so far) I'd say they'll have won the moral right to do so. They're doing the legal work.The BSDs, wine and others have shown it's not something which can safely be ignored because coders find it un-cool.
|
|||||||||||||