Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Posted Apr 11, 2011 8:54 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller
In reply to: Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May
I'm in favor of a strong GPL, not against the GPL. I defended the GPL in connection with Oracle's acquisition of MySQL, as you can read here. I believe the GPL should not just be "scrubbed" from GPL'd programs the way Google did it.
Torvalds said that Edward Naughton's analysis "seems totally bogus". That kind of statement is a contradiction in itself. Either something IS bogus, then you can say so, or you aren't sure and say "seems", but then it can't be "totally bogus" (otherwise you'd take a clear position). Also, I didn't see a statement from Torvalds that would address certain headers that are not located in the /include section of the Linux source tree.
"PJ" has not been right all along. "PJ" said lots of demonstrably false things on various occasions, such as the example I gave here in connection with IBM's patent pledge. "PJ" even said that one isn't allowed to sell GPL'd software. You can read on gnu.org that it is legal. And "PJ" told people all the wrong things about the impact of the Bilski ruling. The fact of the matter is that US courts don't rule any more restrictively after Bilski than they did before. Concerning TurboHercules, "PJ"'s assessment is also different from that of the European Commission, which launched in-depth investigations into IBM's conduct last July.
to post comments)