Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 5:41 UTC (Mon) by charris (guest, #13263)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by BrucePerens
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

I have the impression that RMS has actually antagonized the kernel developers, among others, over the years. Just because the kernel uses the GPL doesn't mean the developers owe RMS eternal gratitude and must hang on his every word. Indeed, perhaps RMS should express some gratitude to Linus. The kernel is probably the highest profile project out there using the GPL, and without the kernel there would be no GPL operating system to run the toolset on.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 4:20 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

There are FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels, which can be forked to GPL. Debian has GNU systems using a BSD kernel. Also Hurd was also functional as a kernel until they decided go L4 on it.

Not that I'd actually want to run one of those kernels.. Linux is by far the most sophisticated and best performing kernel aviable. It's just the best.

RMS is fine. You can't seem to trust him.. but as long as your goals are the same as his then everything is cherry.

What is going on here is just different points of view.

The Kernel developers like the GPL because it compels third parties to contribute code back into the Linux kernel. They don't seem care about the freedom so much or helping to ensure the freedom of end users of products using their software.

They are dedicated to making the kernel as usefull and most effective kernel it can be.

The political nature of RMS's message of his brand of 'Freedom' is counteractive to that goal, going with the current GPLv3 draft would sacrifice some commercial interests of Linux which would benifit Linux developers with code, testing, support, etc etc.

Personally I am a end user and obviously for my own self interest I would like the kernel to go GPLv3 because it would help me avoid devices that claim they 'run linux', but are not hackable. It would help to ensure that companies won't try to sneak restrictions in on me. Anything to make DRM less attractive for hardware developers is a good thing to me.

However I doubt that that realy is the highest priority for the kernel devs. I don't blame them.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:49 UTC (Tue) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]

Right. I just can see the crowds of BSD developers jumping on the
chance to work on GPLv3 forks of *BSD kernels and leaving the
original branches stranded and obsolete. Well, actually I can't,
but I guess it's just another example of kernel folks not having
sufficient proficiency with crystal balls and other fraud paraphrenalia...