Bitching over GPLv3?
Posted Oct 20, 2006 7:36 UTC (Fri) by khim
In reply to: Bitching over GPLv3?
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
Erm, where are the kernel devs bad-mouthing the FSF?
On Groklaw (mostly Linus), comments on other sites (including LWN), interviews, etc. But there too. You don't need dirty words to slander and bad-mouth - it's possible to do it with great politeness.
I think the kernel devs have expressed their opinion very professionally and clearly and they seem to have a good point.
May be, but after that piece (and you are right - it's quite "politically correct") it become clear that they are not content with coding. They want to play politics - but they don't like open confrontation where FSF or RMS can respond. Do you know anyone who's using (or used) such tactics ? Right: it's our dear McBride. Do you like his approach ? Do you feel it's correct approach ? Why it's good for kernel developers then ? Because they are good guys ?
Sorry but while all talks about GPLv2 is were internal discussion between kerel developers I was content and respected their right. It was open to the world - but that's just how linux development works. But when you start using "SCO tactic" (talk to the press first, to the offending party second) - all previous talks are changing colour: was they really only internals talk which become public since all talks about kernel development are public ? Or were they intended for the general public from the start ? And why they only talk to the general public - never to the FSF or RMS ?
When they accuse FSF in "a fundamental violation of the trust" I'd like to see more the just "while we may argue forcefully for our political opinions, we may not suborn or coerce others to go along with them". GPL was always political: if "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it [but GPL is different]" (the very first sentence of the GPLv2) is not political then what is political ? And promise a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him was written years before GPLv2 (let alone GPLv3) so it's kind of hard to argue that "DRM-clause" constitute "violation of trust" - I already find it quite hard to fullfill this promise without such clause ("source code for all modules" plus "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" are not enough in today's world - or so it seems).
P.S. The best summary of my thoughts:
Would I trust RMS to write a successful OS kernel? God No (see HURD)
Would I trust kernel developers to choose (let alone write) successful license? God No (see BitKeeper).
And that's about it: track record for RMS's OS kernel development is poor but track record for writing good licensed is good (not excellent due to GFDL, but if you'll compare GFDL with CCL...).
to post comments)