Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:17 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144)
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Well, given how many times he's been savaged by various people over GNU related issues is it any surprise he doesn't appear to have a positive attitude?

to post comments

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:44 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (42 responses)

Well, given how many times he's been savaged by various people over GNU related issues is it any surprise he doesn't appear to have a positive attitude?

yep. Lets not forget this incident for example:

Stallman recently tried what I would call a hostile takeover of the glibc development. He tried to conspire behind my back and persuade the other main developers to take control so that in the end he is in control and can dictate whatever pleases him. This attempt failed but he kept on pressuring people everywhere and it got really ugly. [...]

The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would be counter-productive to the Free Software course.

(Ulrich Drepper, see this link.)

I for one dont trust Richard Stallman anymore - and apparently Linus neither. And picking the next version of the GPL is very much trust-based for me.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:49 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] (14 responses)

>I for one dont trust Richard Stallman anymore - and apparently Linus neither. And picking the next version of the GPL is very much trust-based for me.

That's why it's *you* who picks the next version of the GPL for your software, as it specifically says "(at your option)" in:
"either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

There is no need to put blind trust in rms as you can always choose the last version of the software that is licensed under a version of the GPL you find truly free.
And, should most people share your opinion, the hypothetical evil version of the GPL will be a stillborn.

Regardless, the GPLv3 is of no concern anymore to most of the leading kernel developers and it is already abundantly clear they will not adopt it even if they could, so why is there this interest of the linux kernel developers to put rms, the fsf and the GPLv3(process) in a bad daylight ?

I understand there is some rivalry between the Open Source and Free Software "camps", but some of the public statements towards the GPLv3 process are downright mean-spirited and/or ill-informed at times and serve no obvious purpose.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:01 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (2 responses)

It's quite simple: we very much care about free software in general.

We'd also like you to understand our position and show you what the basis of our position is.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 13:31 UTC (Wed) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] (1 responses)

With all respect, but it doesn't look you are acting wisely. Wether you
like Stalman or not, in general, the GPL3 is a big improvement. If you
don't like the DRM stuff, you can always grant an exception. (Allthough
forbidding Tivoisation, just one of the intended improvements, is a wise
decision IMHO.)

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 28, 2006 21:48 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

"Grant an exception" that anyone can just strip out whenever they like is of no use. Plus the whole "exceptions" and "extra rights" nonsense creates hundreds of non-compatible licenses, for no good reason at all.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:17 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]

but some of the public statements towards the GPLv3 process are downright mean-spirited and/or ill-informed at times and serve no obvious purpose.

All I can say is what goes around comes around. Many of us do not believe in one true way, even if we are very much believers in free software. I've been on the receiving end of about a billionth of a percent of the vitriol that Linus and others have encountered and I'll tell you I'm very tired of it. I'm surprised that Linus isn't a heck of a lot more negative given his experiences.

GPLv3 & trust?

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:40 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (5 responses)

That's why it's *you* who picks the next version of the GPL for your software, as it specifically says "(at your option)" in: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

You are missing a very obvious thing: tens of thousands of developers have contributed under "GPLv2 or later" projects, assuming and trusting that the FSF promise that later GPL versions would be "similar in spirit" would be upheld. Furthermore, hundreds of people have contributed to the "GNU" codebase and have assigned copyrights to the FSF - again under an implicit trust attached to it.

So if, _I_, a staunch and long-time free software and GPL supporter (see this link and search for occurances of "GPL" in the article) am having doubts about the GPLv3, and if a majority of top kernel developers are having doubts about it, how many other developers have doubts about it, and isnt there a danger that their trust would be abused, if things dont change and the FSF relicenses the GNU codebase to GPLv3 and if "GPLv2 or later" projects become automatically licensed by the GPLv3 too on the day the GPLv3 is released?

You dont seem to be willing to stand up for their moral rights (in fact you dont even seem to accept that _I_ am in honest disagreement, although i wrote about my reasons in many comments) - but i think they should not be forgotten either. They wrote real free software and thus made this world richer.

Trust what they promise, not what you wish they promised

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:27 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

I can respect that the "no technical restrictions" clause is not to your liking, that you probably won't adopt GPLv3 for software that you write and that your goals are not the same as those of the Free Software Foundation. However the Free Software Foundation has clearly explained their position in numerous documents published over many years so your claims about betrayed trust are ignorant at best. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ Have you read any of that? How can you honestly claim that the GPLv3 draft is something other than an extention of that position (whether or not you agree)?

GPLv3 & trust?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:27 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>isnt there a danger that their trust would be abused, if things dont change and the FSF relicenses the GNU codebase to GPLv3 and if "GPLv2 or later" projects become automatically licensed by the GPLv3 too on the day the GPLv3 is released?

Basically, no. The worst that could happen is that you'll be stuck with GPLv2 forever.

Basically the developers you are worrying about are the same developers who are distributing their software under the GPL. If the GPLv3 comes around and everybody hates it, the developers of these projects would naturally fork.
This remains even true if the copyrights are assigned to the FSF. Even though they would be the sole copyright holder of a certain program A that was licensed under "GPLv3 or higher" it would be a stale project if it had no developers left and last free version would become the main tree.

The only catch would be that the FSF could always incorporate the changes from the now-main "GPLv2 or higher" into their hypothetical onerous (or even proprietary) "GPLv3 or higher" version. But with no developers left and all goodwill destroyed it would quickly become a futile effort.
This would be in a worst case scenario.

The "at your option" is there for a reason. And that reason is that you should never have to blindly rely on any person or any institution, no matter how benevolent they may seem at the moment.
It's there to mitigate the worst case scenario and enable GPL-licensed Free Software to survive under very hostile conditions.

GPLv3 & trust?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:38 UTC (Wed) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link]

>You are missing a very obvious thing: tens of thousands of developers have contributed under "GPLv2 or later" projects, assuming and trusting that the FSF promise that later GPL versions would be "similar in spirit" would be upheld.

Where is the problem? The spirit is still the same.

Look at the GNU Manifesto, read the GNU philosophy or just the preamble of the GPL.

The spirit was always the everyone who gets software which is licensed under the GPL should have the right to (0) use it for any purpose, (1) study and modify it (and of course than go back to freedom (0)), (2) share it and (3) copy modified versions. If you want to remove this rights through license-changing, technology (DRM), software patents or through any other technology or law wich could appear in the future than you act against the spirit of the GPL.
GPLv2 protected this freedoms really good in the age before DRM and software patents, GPLv3 will protect this freedoms really good in the age of software patents and DRM and i hope GPLv4 will protect this freedoms in the future if new technology and/or laws appear to remove this freedoms.

As long as the GPL (never mind in which version) will secure this freedom the GPL is in the spirit of it predecessors.

GPLv3 & trust?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 7:06 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

How could "GPLv2 or later" become "automatically licensed by the GPLv3"?
Who has the right to relicense your code?

And how would that be possible, without redefining basic language words
such as "or"? (Which by the way would make programming a bit
difficult! ;) )

These fears borders to irrational bashing. No one except you has the
right to relicense your software, not now and not with the GPLv3.

GPLv3 & trust?

Posted Oct 7, 2006 23:22 UTC (Sat) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]

I am one of those "people have contributed to the "GNU" codebase and
have assigned copyrights to the FSF". I don't feel that the FSF is
betraying my trust with the GPLv3 process, and the GPLv3 looks to me
like it will be a fine license. But even if I did not like it, there
would be various alternatives for me; they would not be pretty, but
they exist.

So, thank you, Ingo, for so valiantly standing up for my defense, but
that is really not needed.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:02 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (2 responses)

> > I for one dont trust Richard Stallman anymore - and apparently Linus
> > neither. And picking the next version of the GPL is very much trust-based
> > for me.

> That's why it's *you* who picks the next version of the GPL for
> your software, as it specifically says "(at your option)" in:
> "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

This kind of misses the issue. If I write some code under the GPLv2 (or later), and then GPLvLater comes out and changes the rules of the road in very significant ways that I do not accept, it's not _my_ choice as to whether people license y code under GPLvLater, anyone can apply this new license even if I find it totally unconscionable. I can of course continue to license changes to my code under GPLv2 (or later), but the unconscionable license may become the one generally used.

Now, I'm not claiming (in this post) anything in either direction about whether GPLv3 will substantially change the rules in objctionable ways, but the issue remains that changing it in ways that GPLv2(or later) coders do not appreciate would be a seriously unpleasant business for programmers who have done so.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:13 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (1 responses)

This kind of misses the issue. If I write some code under the GPLv2 (or later), and then GPLvLater comes out and changes the rules of the road in very significant ways that I do not accept, it's not _my_ choice as to whether people license y code under GPLvLater, anyone can apply this new license even if I find it totally unconsciable. I can of course continue to license changes to my code under GPLv2 (or later), but the unconscionable license may become the one generally used.

Exactly. For example, i might become supportive of the GPLv3 later on if it's modified sufficiently - but still if i saw people (contributors) coherently arguing that it's unacceptable to them then i'd be uneasy to force it on them - because once introduced, the GPLv3 license is constructed in a way so that code would "gravitate" towards the one pure GPLv3 license. We really, really have to be careful and unify a large majority of current contributors under the GPLv3 umbrella. Saying that "oh it was all written into the GNU Manifesto, sorry" or "you can list extra permissions/restrictions" is not enough to keep a community unified.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 12:27 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link]

That is exactly the same way with GPLv2, though.

You can, if you feel so inclined, strip the additional permissions to you granted in libgcc's license, or strip those granted to you for g++'s standard libraries, or even those in gcj.

You can even take LGPLd code, and convert it to GPLv2 licensed code, and accordingly turn the glibc into a GPLd work, or GNOME, or whatever LGPL licensed piece of code you find out there.

If there was merit to your claim, we would be seeing that LGPLd projects 'gravitate' towards GPLv2, and that GPLd projects strip off their exceptions, and all that.

I haven't seen any of that over the past years. In fact, libgmp went from GPL to LGPL with FSF's blessing. Ogg ended up being BSD licensed with FSF's blessing. Most of KDE libs, like the HTML component, are LGPLd and happily staying that way. And so on.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 28, 2006 3:29 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link]

> And, should most people share your opinion, the hypothetical evil version of the GPL will be a stillborn.

Well, no, the entire body of FSF code _will_ be moved to v3, barring some spectacularly unforseen circumstance.

Now true, if it's really that bad then that code could all be forked at the latest v2 version, but that'd be a major commitment. Hardly making v3 "stillborn".

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:03 UTC (Tue) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] (26 responses)

That link begs the question of whether/when glibc will go GPLv3, and what unintended consequences WRT the Linux kernel might shake out.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:43 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] (25 responses)

That disagreement was quite a while ago. There was somewhat of an aftermath and another side to the story but it got drowned out in the subsequent events.
Suffice to say that in the end the maintainer didn't fork away glibc from the GNU-project so perhaps the differences where not completely irreconcilable (although probably far from comfortable).

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:03 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (24 responses)

Suffice to say that in the end the maintainer didn't fork away glibc [...]

as the link i gave describes it perfectly well, the Stallman "backstabbing" failed and thus Ulrich Drepper did not have to fork glibc. Thus it's not "in the end" but right at the beginning, and the "suffice to say" is misplaced at best :)

What we see here is a pattern of RMS being accused of attacking people behind their back - and i have no reason to doubt Ulrich Drepper's words. I quote:

The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back. *NEVER* voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for the project. (link)

As i said before, this whole thing is trust-based for me. (You might have other preferences or other experience - it's your choice.)

I've never seen Linus do any "backstabbing" (or being accused of doing that) - in fact i can attest to the fact that every time Linus called me stupid it was right in front of everyone ;-)

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 5:53 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] (20 responses)

Breaking trust is when someone leads you to expect something and then intentionally betrays your expectations. I have never seen where FSF or RMS has ever broken anyone's trust.

Several posters have tried to explain to you that it is easy to trust RMS/FSF. They are quite predictable. After all, an alternative formulation of Drepper's complaint is that you *can* trust RMS to insist upon his views. In Drepper's case, it was a FSF project, so why should we not expect RMS to insist upon various things? It's naive to assign something to the FSF or any entity for that matter and expect it not to be subjected to their agenda.

We all know that RMS claims that people act ethically or unethically. How is that a personal attack, if he can show how it is true? You may end up disagreeing with it, but I would bet you would have to claim a different ethical standard to do so. I would suggest that if you want to counter RMS/FSF, a more constructive means would be to explain what is unethical about what they do.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:46 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (19 responses)

We all know that RMS claims that people act ethically or unethically. How is that a personal attack, if he can show how it is true? You may end up disagreeing with it, but I would bet you would have to claim a different ethical standard to do so.

Most people do "claim a different ethical standard" that differs from RMS's unusual views of right and wrong. For example, what percentage of the general population thinks that non-free software is ethically wrong? Less than 1/1,000,000 of one percent?

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:15 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] (18 responses)

Most people do "claim a different ethical standard" that differs from RMS's unusual views of right and wrong. For example, what percentage of the general population thinks that non-free software is ethically wrong? Less than 1/1,000,000 of one percent?

Although most may claim differently, I have yet to find a convincing defense of their standard, say on the level of Stallman's essays. Instead of trying to show moral superiority of their standard, they seem to play down the role of ethics. Such moral relativism generally is not a constructive path toward doing the right thing.

For example, one of RMS's basic assumptions is that helping others is the basis of society. Finding fault with such an assumption could be a good starting point for an opposing argument. While I see no fault, I would gladly consider an well-expressed argument by someone who does.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:53 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (17 responses)

Instead of trying to show moral superiority of their standard, they seem to play down the role of ethics. Such moral relativism generally is not a constructive path toward doing the right thing.

The fact that RMS attempts to show moral superiority does not in itself make his morality superior. His moral standard is just as relative to his own personal beliefs as is yours or mine.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 18:43 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

In the most recent RMS interview I've seen (<http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=18757>), he comes over as one who clearly believes he is morally superior and looks at the rest of the world as being in need of his superior wisdom. He manages to be paternalistic and contemptuous at the same time that he advocates violating copyright to get access to movies outside DRM.

Of course, this attitude groups him with a lot of other leaders, some of whom we revere as visionaries, some of who we revile as tyrants or fools. Only time will tell. He's pointing at real problems; I just don't believe he's offering real solutions.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 20:35 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link]

Well, as you acknowledge, what matters in the end is whether he can help come up with solution, not his social manner.

Feelings of moral superiority is probably more prevalent among people than you suggest, so I do not see how the RMS interview shows anything special. It reminds me of the stereotypes of the rude East coasters who say what is on their mind versus the Californians who are afraid to say anything politically incorrect. Many, many people are holier-than-thou--RMS is just uninhibited to the point of occasional rudeness, not the worst quality IMO.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 19:44 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] (10 responses)

The fact that RMS attempts to show moral superiority does not in itself make his morality superior. His moral standard is just as relative to his own personal beliefs as is yours or mine.

At least he is trying, complete with initial assumption and application of logic until conclusions. If there is no flaw found in his reasoning, then fault should be found in his assumptions. Indeed, too many counterarguments out there seem to rely on conflicting assumptions which are mistakenly portrayed as more than that.

It is entirely possible that his reasoning is incomplete, but the right thing to do would be to show how. Otherwise, it would be better if those conflicting assumptions were spelled out plainly. It seems that such assumptions are that freedom and cooperation are, at best, means to an end. Plainly disagreeing on such assumptions elevates the discussion beyond moral relativism IMHO and would be better for all concerned.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 20:23 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (7 responses)

It seems that such assumptions are that freedom and cooperation are, at best, means to an end.

What exactly do you mean by this? If freedom and cooperation are but means to an end, then what is the end?

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 20:48 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] (6 responses)

What exactly do you mean by this? If freedom and cooperation are but means to an end, then what is the end?

You know--technological progress. Now we are getting into the territory that deeply divides people! No other end is ever claimed by open source advocates. Not being a social movement, they do not concern themselves with the social condition.

I suspect they feel such concern is misguided, perhaps because the social condition is less controllable than technology. Being less controllable does not justify ignoring it IMO.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 21:53 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (5 responses)

Or, perhaps they [we] feel that, at least in this case, technology is not the solution to the social condition in question.

It's like the old saw, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

The only tool available here is the license language, so it's tempting to try to use it to solve whatever issus you think are important. When the issue is "I want to make my code available, but I want to be able to see what changes other people make to it" that hammer works fine; when the issue is "DRM is evil", that hammer has nothing to pound on.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 23:25 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] (4 responses)

The only tool available here is the license language, so it's tempting to try to use it to solve whatever issus you think are important. When the issue is "I want to make my code available, but I want to be able to see what changes other people make to it" that hammer works fine; when the issue is "DRM is evil", that hammer has nothing to pound on.

The very same concern for scope of a license has been repeatedly leveled at GPLv2 over the years; scope in and of itself does not seem to be that compelling. Again, we are brought back to the "user". One side argues for the manufacturer, the other the end owner. With Tivoization, the undeniable fact is that freedoms granted to the manufacturer are not granted to the end owner. You may be arguing that it is in line with the intentions that produced the GPLv2. If you are right here, then we must correct the FSF. However, I think your argument is that the reduction of freedoms is OK, regardless of the intentions.

Computers--embedded or not--are universal tools that embody exceptionally strong notions of freedoms. Moreover, propagation of digital information is ridiculously easy and cheap. Few other examples scenarios show the kind of artificial imbalance of freedom that we see between Tivo and a Tivo user. That few Tivo users might benefit does not subtract from the principle.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 28, 2006 3:53 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] (3 responses)

> With Tivoization, the undeniable fact is that freedoms granted to the manufacturer are not granted to the end owner.

It is perfectly deniable, because it is not a fact.

With regards to the software, the end user has _exactly_ the same rights as the manufacturer -- he is perfectly free to take and modify that software, develop some unique hardware, and to manufacture and sell that hardware along with the modified software.

The original manufacturer's right to create a box that will only run software that he approves has _nothing_ to do with software, it's inherent in his right to design the hardware any way he wants to, and sell that hardware if he so chooses and if anyone else is stupid enough to buy it. (So long as he meets the license terms of any included software).

The fact that Moglen and RMS don't seem to have a problem with distributing GPL software embedded in ROM indicates that they fundamentally agree with this position, but they're trying to pretend that "Tivoization" is something different, to the detriment of the v3 license.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:48 UTC (Thu) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] (2 responses)

It is perfectly deniable, because it is not a fact.

It is too a fact, because you know very well that the freedoms under discussion are the four freedoms. Tivo has freedom one--the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to their needs--and you don't, since it is impossible to run any possible modified version of yours.

The original manufacturer's right to create a box that will only run software that he approves has _nothing_ to do with software, it's inherent in his right to design the hardware any way he wants to, and sell that hardware if he so chooses and if anyone else is stupid enough to buy it. (So long as he meets the license terms of any included software).

The issue is that is that this right should not damage the four freedoms. GPLv3 restores protection for them, and a manufacturer, unable to exercise his right to Tivoize with software under the GPLv3, should choose software under a license permitting Tivoization. The FSF has the same right as anyone else to set their own terms for their license. GPLv3 looks more like a bug-fix than anything else.

The fact that Moglen and RMS don't seem to have a problem with distributing GPL software embedded in ROM indicates that they fundamentally agree with this position, but they're trying to pretend that "Tivoization" is something different, to the detriment of the v3 license.

There is no pretending at all: with ROM freedom one is moot.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 28, 2006 22:07 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link] (1 responses)

It is too a fact, because you know very well that the freedoms under discussion are the four freedoms. Tivo has freedom one--the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to their needs--and you don't, since it is impossible to run any possible modified version of yours.

How is it impossible? Modified it won't run on your TiVo, but it runs here on my PC just fine.

And what about the same TiVo, just with the software in ROM? That is OK under GPLv3, but is the same situation from the user's point.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 29, 2006 0:34 UTC (Fri) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link]

How is it impossible? Modified it won't run on your TiVo, but it runs here on my PC just fine.

Modified it must be possible to run it on my Tivo because that is what this whole thing is about: my ability to implement the same functionality in the same range of circumstances as what Tivo does by exploiting GPLed code for the device that I bought from them and now own. Fortunately, the GPLv3 restores my ability lost from Tivo exploiting a loophole.

And what about the same TiVo, just with the software in ROM? That is OK under GPLv3, but is the same situation from the user's point.

No--not the same situation, because now Tivo and I are now on an equal footing--Freedom One applying to neither of us, unlike the Tivoization case above.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 22:52 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] (1 responses)

>At least he is trying, complete with initial assumption and application of logic until conclusions.

I agree with you here. RMS is an archetype. We need that 'crazy uncle' figure to keep us from complacency.

I start to taper off from the gentleman when he asserts that his neat logical conclusions preclude the possibility of other conclusions. Only a Supreme Being would tote such potency. The FSF's goals are one set of legitimate goals among many. Labeling other goals 'unethical' does not, of itself, render them so.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 23:33 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link]

I seem to have the most trouble with some of his assumptions. If you could offer an alternative conclusion given his assumptions, that would be quite notable and noble IMO.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:05 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (3 responses)

The difference is that RMS sticks absolutely to the morals he advocates. Too many people confuse "moral relativism" with violating one's own moral code, and the presence of someone who makes a point of not doing so makes them feel like a hypocrite. Likewise, most people can't tell the difference between explaining and supporting one's own moral standards and passing judgement on those of others.

That, I suspect, is the source of most people's anger and defensiveness in reacting to RMS and his statements. It's the collective outrage of "good people" being made to feel a little less so by their own consciences.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 30, 2006 12:51 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] (2 responses)

...But you like the idea of Linus being able to force his own set of morals and ethics on others? If I buy a TiVo, TiVo can change the software on that specific device without my permission or knowledge. As the owner of the device I am not allowed to change the software on that specific device. Under what definition of tit-for-tac does that fit?

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:02 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (1 responses)

I can see no part of what I said that you're actually replying to...

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 10, 2006 2:12 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

Interesting, I can't either.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 8:42 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

Ulrich Drepper: NEVER voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for the project.

I don't know if Ulrich Drepper ever read the FSF copyright transfer agreement. It's not an exclusive copyright transfer, and puts a lot of trust on you - the original author - rather than on the FSF; the FSF promises to hold up the four freedoms forever. It's basically a way to allow the FSF to sue third parties which violate the license, rather than to have the original author to sue himself. He can, nonetheless, if he likes to.

I'm maintainer of a GNU project (gforth), and I've never ever been stabbed into the back by RMS. Agreed, this is not such an important project as glibc, and it's sufficiently agnostic to the host OS (though it is not completely agnostic WRT GNU/non-GNU environments: we slightly treat GNU ones better). RMS helped us once to clarify the license conditions, which are a bit odd on a Forth system compared e.g. to a C compiler (the further is interactive, and contains an incremental compiler).

I have seen Torvalds being accused of backstabbing, too

Posted Sep 27, 2006 12:09 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] (1 responses)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_...

So you should stop trusting Linus now, based on this single source, that cobbles together a bunch of e-mails and posts to some web sites, I guess, if you are to go by the same standard for your vilification of RMS.

Linus and RMS are the same type of person.

I have seen Torvalds being accused of backstabbing, too

Posted Sep 28, 2006 20:24 UTC (Thu) by h2 (guest, #27965) [Link]

Exactly. The person I trust less after reading through most of the threads on the GPL 3 debate is Linus, who clearly shows himself willing to do several things that do not help generate trust: be inconsistent in his tone, to a massive degree, jumping from near hysterical screaming on groklaw to near rational elsewhere, why he does this I don't really care, what I do see is that he does it.

The Tridgell example is a very good one to bring up, and shows clearly that he is a bit too willing to start on the downhill slope of compromise, without being willing to consider the long term consequences, or to listen to people who warned him about this potential.

And his refusal to address the potential issues of that particular decision until the situation blew up in his face does little to make me trust his ability to do any clearsighted long term thinking on the possible results of his actions and decisions. This alone should make people give some serious thought to just how much you can trust Linus to really watch out for even the restricted long term interests of Open Source software.

It is very fortunate for us that the GPL2 proved sufficiently strong to prevent Linus from making who knows how many other potential compromises he might have wanted to make over the past years, but which the license prevented him from making. And since from what I gather from the more clear headed comments here, the GPL 3 proposed text really only tightens that long term protection. For me it's very easy to see that the spirit, and implication, of GPL 2, definitely does not preclude the fact that all software must be able to run on some hardware by definition, so changes should not be able to deny real world running of the code, it just didn't make that point explicit enough.

The only thing I could accuse Stallman of is absolute consistency in his outlook, and more importantly, in his long term behavior. He believes what he believes, and he lives his life by what he believes. Personally, I respect that, since it's an amazingly rare quality in people. Others may choose to deride this is zealotry or whatever, but I'd like to take a very close look at those people's lives and decisions before I'd take what they have to say very seriously. Luckily we have that opportunity with Stallman, Moglen, etc, so we can all decide for ourselves whether we agree or disagree with their positions.

If people think living your life within a consistent set of ethical principles is a negative that says I think more about them than Stallman. Now you can disagree with Stallman and what he believes, that's quite easy to do, but accusing him of departing from core values over time is not something you can do unless you ignore reality. So I'd say, if you trusted Stallman with GPL 2, very little has changed in him or his outlook when it comes to GPL 3, except that he now can see areas that he could not anticipate in GPL 2.

By the way, I'd like to thank Mingo for at least admitting that he is merely 'trying' to communicate the reasons for the disagreement. In my case, I have to admit that the effort has failed, I have not seen any particularly convincing arguments put forth by the kernel developers. But I do applaud the effort to at least try to be rational, which is more than I have seen from Linus, whose opposition seems to stem from personal dislike of the FSF and Stallman more than any other single factor, no matter how he tries to whitewash this.

I still trust Linus and the core developers to do the very best job they can do on the kernel code, and I trust that it will continue to improve over time, that trust hasn't changed at all, and I hope they continue with their great work. What has changed is that I no longer trust them to foresee events that might end up severely compromising even the freedoms given by their open source vs/ free software beliefs.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:54 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (20 responses)

Well from reading many of the comments that get attached to anyone who disagrees with the GPLv3 you would come to feel that person is a heretic who needs to be taken to a Gulag for some serious Reeducation in good old Stalin/Mao ways.

Since at that point, a rational discourse can not be had because it has become a partisan religous debate.. it is better to just nod your heads, smile politely at the foaming mouthed zeolat and run for the door quickly.

smile politely at foaming mouthed zealots

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:09 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (2 responses)

Hehe :-) Well said.

smile politely at foaming mouthed zealots

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:02 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (1 responses)

Indeed. If I thought the Stallmanites could actually get anywhere, they'd scare me a lot more than the Microsofts and IBMs of this world. As it is, though, they are mainly just a vocal nuisance who get the rest of us laughed at more than we would be otherwise.

I think there is probably a good bit of truth to Linus' feeling that much of the discussion is driven by people who talk more than they code. i.e. politically oriented people advocating a license without having much or any code of their own to go under it.

politely feed the name-calling trolls

Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:15 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> "foaming mouthed zealots"
> "vocal nuisance".

It's ad hominem attacks like these that get "the rest of us" laughed
at -- not the clear-headed discussion of facts and statement of ethical
positions and technical concerns like in most of the other posts.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:10 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] (1 responses)

"Please try to be polite, respectful, and informative, and to provide a useful subject line." ;)

While I wouldn't put my hand into the fire for either Linus or the FSF, as far as I can see from his recent posts, Linus is no more trustworthy than the FSF in this (very funny, actually) spectacle.

* He uses the same tactics that he accuses the FSF of to persuade his audience: wiesel-wording, FUD, misinformation.

* His 'posse' threatens to fork FSF's projects over licensing issues, just in the way how he accuses the FSF to threaten to fork his kernel over licensing issues.

* He uses the 'put up or shut up' i.e. 'write your own kernel' argument when it comes to discussing the weak points of his argumentation. That's the same argument as 'you don't have to use GPLv3 licensed software, write your own'.

* He tolerates a non-transparent process for the sake of getting the outcome he wants (kernel devs position/poll on GPLv3 == GPLv3 draft committees)

* Assumes to speak for a movement (Open Source vs. Free Software).

* FSF zealots! vs. Most of our users don't believe in freedom.

etc.

If someone believes that a particular side has the higher moral ground in this, I congratulate them for being able to find it. I can't find much, so far.

Nevertheless, I find this all highly amusing, and I bet I'm not the only one. In the spirit of ELER and lonelygirl15, if this goes on for a few more weeks, I think I should start a DRM-free, CC-licensed, 'linusv3' video blog featuring sock puppets on YouTube and commercially exploit it. I'm sure the small-children-eating GPLv3 license draft '2' sock will be a big hit on CafePress. ;)

Go for it

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:14 UTC (Wed) by RMetz (guest, #27939) [Link]

I would totally watch that.

Godwin's Law

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:32 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] (14 responses)

You compare people who argue in favor of the GPLv3 draft to mass murderers and yet they are the zealots foaming at the mouth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Godwin's Law

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:05 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (7 responses)

You seem to not be able to read and digest information.

1) I said SOME people act like this. I should have capitalized the words that time, but every time I have done so in the past.. someone will still post exactly what you said.

My comments about Mao and Stalin comes from comments that several people said around the AI labs when I visited in the 1990's. Some people seem to believe that their is only one way that code should be licensed and those who disagree should be at best ignored, or sent off to a long retraining about the right way to think.

2) I can't use Godwin's law because I was trying to provoke it. Sadly the corrolary means that the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 license wars will go on for a couple more months.

Hiding behind weasel words?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 13:04 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] (5 responses)

I didn't claim that you compared ALL people who argue in favor of the GPLv3 draft to mass murderers. Since all the accused have actually done is post comments in a public discussion group, SOME is plenty. The implications of being "taken to a Gulag for some serious Reeducation in good old Stalin/Mao ways" are quite clear regardless of whatever weasel words you care to deploy by way of excusing yourself.

Hiding behind weasel words?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:22 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (4 responses)

My words were mean spirited and did not help the talk. I thought they were funny at the time, but I should have realized that its humour was gallows at best, and horrible at worst. I would apologize, but it would just be more weasel words.

I used to love Free Software in its earliest sense, but I am sick and tired that EVERY time someone disagrees that the GPLv3 is what they want for their software, a large gang-press comes to re-educate them and drown out any possible dissent.

What's a gang-press?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 18:43 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] (2 responses)

I haven't heard that term before.

What makes you feel your dissent is being drowned out? Afaict, you've tried to label people you disagreed with as evil, so you got replies disagreeing with that.

Do you consider labelling people who disagree with you as dissent? I'm curious.

I enjoyed reading Ted Tso's mail today on LKML that goes into the linkage issues between the kernel and the glibc, for example, and came back with the idea that his dissent is based on technical issues. I also read Linus' 'fed up with the FSF' piece, and came back with the idea that his dissent is based on personal issues between him and the FSF, and philosophical considerations on what should be in the GPL.

I think that as long as he and his supporters, as well the other side, can keep their own personal issues out of it, they can manage to get to a workable compromise with each other. You'll have to find some mutual respect, though, or you all won't get that.

I don't think that's very likely for the next few weeks, though, as it's in both leaders' and their followers' nature to try to prove to the other guys that they are more clever first. So I expect to see this fun 'public debate on GPLv3' to continue for a while, while the real fixing will be done behind the scenes between OSDL, FSF and similar entities, anyway, in the usual 'undemocratic', 'intrasparent' way such things are done.

I'd guess that after the fixes are in, the undemocratic process will be just fine. :)

What's a gang-press?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:12 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

My guess is that "gang-press" was supposed to be "press gang". This was a military "recruiting" tactic of the past which allowed the Royal Navy, for instance, to round up people on the streets and "press" them into service.

What's a gang-press?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:47 UTC (Thu) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link]

Ah! Thank you for the explanation.

Fair enough

Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:42 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

I commend your ability to admit that. There is nothing wrong with stating that you believe advocates of the GPLv3 draft are too aggressive but without knowning which particular comments you are thinking of that is hard to evaluate.

Godwin's Law

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:16 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

So, let's be precise here. Exactly how many people have lost their lives at the hands of the FSF's "zealots"?

Amusingly, but tragically, you're using personal derogatory terms to condemn the very people who tend to be first up against the wall when revolutions come - the people who say "non serviam", the people who don't just take everyone else's word for it, but stand up and do something to ensure the opposite point of view is represented.

Perhaps before screaming "zealots" or "Maoists" and frothing at the mouth yourself, you should consider exactly why you are so offended by people who have done precisely *nothing* to limit your freedoms - indeed who have, by standing up and pointing out why they're necessary, done a great deal to ensure you still have them.

(Your display of gratitude is, regrettably, all too common.)

Godwin's Law

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:22 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (5 responses)

You compare people who argue in favor of the GPLv3 draft to mass murderers [...]

That's not what he said, at all - please read his comment.

[ I'm wondering where this insta-attack mentality of some GPLv3 proponents comes from. It looks really ugly and vile, and makes our community seem childish. I've seen more mentions of "FUD" in this thread alone than in most Slashdot discussion about Microsoft ;-) ]

Godwin's Law

Posted Sep 27, 2006 2:30 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link]

I know. My apologies for invoking the F-word.

I think that both sides lionize their 'leaders' a bit too much, and ignore how similar they (and their respective leaders) are, both in their tactics employed in the discussion, and their agendas. But then, people focusing on what separates them, and projecting the other side as vile, and evil, is not a particularly new human condition. ;)

Anyway, your arguments on the DRM clauses have made me think more deeply about my own position on the issue, and I'll add some comments to the second draft to propose some changes as a result. I'd encourage you and others interested in having a GPLv3 that does not suck to do the same, as the current draft carries less then a dozen comments even for the most controversial issues debated here.

Insta-attack Pot-Kettle-Black

Posted Sep 27, 2006 13:23 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] (2 responses)

Why don't you try reading his comment yourself. Here, I'll make it easy: "Well from reading many of the comments that get attached to anyone who disagrees with the GPLv3 you would come to feel that person is a heretic who needs to be taken to a Gulag for some serious Reeducation in good old Stalin/Mao ways." I don't know what kind of evasive parsing you are using to see this as something other than a comparison of people who make comments you and smoogen disagree with to mass murderers but please go ahead and explain. That should be amusing.

Insta-attack Pot-Kettle-Black

Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:10 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (1 responses)

Well for the first part.. my grammar is atrocious. It is hard to figure out what I was meaning in my rambling without the proper usage of ,;.

I will try to edit it better to as the following:

After reading many of the comments on this and other forums, anyone who disagrees with the GPLv3 seems to be labeled as someone who needs serious time at a re-education Gulag like they had in the good old Stalin/Mao days.

It was meant to be a serious attempt to quietly invoke Godwins' law. It was also a reference that used to be told quietly from older Gnu/FSF people to new Gnu people. When I posted a comment in 1994 about building a GPL for patents, I got a private email from either Tom Lord or Tom Bushnell that was a subject that got one sent to the Gulags by RMS. There also seemed to have been a whole internal joke structure about who in the FSF was Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin and Mao depending on which way the winds in the Politburo (aka MIT AI area they were in) was blowing.

http://lwn.net/Articles/59147/

About Godwin

Posted Sep 28, 2006 2:00 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

The reason I object to these comparisons is not that the Free Software Foundation isn't a fair target for mockery or that Richard Stallman can't be autocratic. As Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, comparing mass murderers to people who are at worst obnoxious trivializes their crimes. The argument you are making is not fundamentally unreasonable but it would be stronger without exaggeration.

Godwin's Law

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:42 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

I have no strong view on the matter - but from here, the rabid-looking ones are the antis. It's apparently not enough to say that the GPL is not what I want for my software, the comments I've read here have (bypassing the question of whether it's a worthwhile licence in its own right, or legally even an option for Linux) gone straight to attacking the FSF and RMS personally (and you've done that yourself, Ingo - come on, regurgitating Ulrich Drepper's second-hand bile... how the hell is *that* relevant to, or useful in deciding, the question of the GPLv3's merits?)

Meanwhile, about the most malicious statement I've seen from the pro side is that the kernel developers don't appreciate freedom (which, in the RMS sense of freedom being the foundation upon which all progress is based and the most essential value in any ethical system, they don't - Linus has always taken pragmatism over freedom, as do well over 90% of people every day). No personal attacks, certainly nothing saying "well, Linus is a control freak who can't be trusted and backstabs" from key FSF personnel; just advocacy, and a weary acknowledgement that not everyone shares their values or understands why they deem them so necessary.

Yet it's the antis who call the pros "rabid", or accuse them of an "insta-attack mentality". Why is that, I wonder?