FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 14:25 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com) by anandsr21
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

> Most comments coming from the Kernel Camp are Trollish and FUDish.

Absolutely, and I think it is offending a lot of Linux users, developers
and evangelists. I have so much respect for the kernel community, having
sat with my toe in that swimming pool now for a few years, and some of
the comments made by Linus and others (especially to the press) have
forced me to ask a lot of tough questions - not about the comments but
about the people making them.

Disagreeing about a software license is one thing, but what I've stood
witness to is something entirely different. There's this great fear in
circulation (largely started by the kernel community) that GPLv3 is going
to split us down the middle and ruin us, yet they seem to totally miss
the irony of their choice of language and tactic.

(Log in to post comments)

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:15 UTC (Wed) by RareCactus (guest, #41198) [Link]

Linus chose the GPLv2 because he liked the license, not because he necessarily agreed with RMS in any other way.

I am a Linux developer, and I agree with Linus' choice, then and now. If you want politics, go over to the projects which do politics. We do code.

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:25 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Color me a little confused with your response. I'm not calling the kernel
guys out because they dislike GPLv3. I think they have as much right as
anyone else to have an opinion on what license best suits their code. I
think it is likely (given discussions on LKML, the views of the most
active kernel developers, and practical matters) that Linux will remain
GPLv2, and I'm perfectly okay with that. I'm not offended.

What I'm not okay with is the ad hominem attacks aimed at RMS and the
FSF, and the blatant lies about the GPL drafting process. That offends
me. If kernel people aren't going to use GPLv3, fine, but why not leave
the rest of us alone?

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 19, 2006 0:19 UTC (Thu) by walken (subscriber, #7089) [Link]

> I am a Linux developer, and I agree with Linus' choice, then and now. If you want politics, go over to the projects which do politics. We do code.

What about the document titled 'The Dangers and Problems of the GPLv3' - was that code or politics ?

Please get off your high horse. You can't dismiss people arguments as 'doing politics' when they're only replying to your own inflamatory statements.

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 19, 2006 15:24 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

Well said!