Remember the other side

Posted Oct 4, 2006 9:02 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

If you want to criticise the FSF, write they are stubborn fools, not that they "breached trust". They've been nothing but consistent over the years, repeating again and again what their aims were and that the GPL was their tool to achieve them.

You may disagree with the FSF aims, but claiming surprise now is a bit rich.

Fact :
1. the FSF had announced the possibility of a GPL v2+ for years (that's why the "or later" clause is there after all)
2. the FSF aims and intent have always been well known (if anything RMS and the FSF have taken flack over the years for hammering them at every possible occasion)
3. you don't need to be a genius to understand an GPL v2+ could only harden the licensing terms, as a loosening would have been a lot of work for no win
4. in the last years Linus made a lot of noise (relayed and amplified in many media) about the "or later" implications
5. the GPLv3 review process has been going on for some time, so "discovering" the GPLv3 now is a bit rich (hell I've seen a PHB-oriented GPLv3 presentation months ago by people which had nothing to do with the FSF)

I can understand grumblings about the inconvenience of the FSF writing a GPLv3 now, but all the "how dare they write a GPLv3" really fly off the mark. One thing you can't accuse RMS and the FSF of is not being clear on their intent.

What people could legitimatelly complain at is the GPLv3 wording, and there is still room to amend/simplify it. Unfortunately it seems the fiercest GPLv3 bashers didn't even spend the time to analyse the GPLv3 text or propose alternatives, preferring to go into deep denial, and refering to third-party distorted accounts of the GPLv3 text.