Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious [LWN.net]

Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious

Posted Apr 11, 2011 8:54 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
In reply to: Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious by tuxmania
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.

(Log in to post comments)

Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious

Posted Apr 11, 2011 10:56 UTC (Mon) by tuxmania (guest, #70024) [Link]

The GPL was not scrubbed, thats just truism at its best. If we have to choose between you and Bradley Kuhn, i think most reasonable people would take the one being a GPL-expert and part of the open source movement. A paid for lobbyist with no interest whatsoever in open software except when paid for by Redhat and MySQL, not so much.

When Torvalds also says its ok, my personal picture is pretty much already clear and its you that has to prove your right in detail.

Im sure you can find things where PJ has been wrong considering the scope of the case. What interests us mortals is the impressive percentage of times she has been right, not the few time where she was wrong.

Regarding Billski its no surprise its not enforced considering the amount of lobbying from software companies in the US. Software patents are their last defense against open source and without it they will soon be thrown out on a market where software is priced based on its utility, the money printing press will stop running.

TurboHercules is a sad story where IBM wont support their own stuff if its virtualised ontop of a shoddy product like Windows. From a technical standpoint thats more than reasonable, if not painfully obvious.

Its also very obvious who the driving force is behind TurboHercules. Microsoft is gaming the legal system for all their worth, all over the place.