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 22:46 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)
In reply to: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) by man_ls
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Unnamed sources, general unhappiness, lawyers asking kernel hackers. Where has the world gone to.

I can assure you that there is general unhappiness about the GPLv3 process in Linux kernel developer circles - and the FSF's happiness about attacking perceived detractors has a large influence on that unhappiness rarely becoming actual names.

It also does not help that RMS thinks that "Most of our community does not appreciate freedom" (link) and hence has intentionally created an undemocratic and closed process for the GPLv3.

to post comments

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

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:29 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (3 responses)

I can assure you that there is general unhappiness about the GPLv3 process in Linux kernel developer circles

That is sad. The issue was about participants in the process, though.

the FSF's happiness about attacking perceived detractors has a large influence on that unhappiness rarely becoming actual names.

A lot of you were very brave and either signed the position paper or answered to the poll, standing up for what you believe. Some of you are taking the time to participate in the public discussion, which we the rest of the world appreciate a lot. Now the FSF have respectfully published their opinion; I have seen no attacks, at least not in public.

So I wish those "unhappy participants" would also come along; otherwise I see no need to mention them but to spread FUD about the process. It is weird to see Torvalds doing things like this.

It also does not help that RMS thinks that "Most of our community does not appreciate freedom" (link) and hence has intentionally created an undemocratic and closed process for the GPLv3.

I'm very sorry that you think it is a closed process, that is quite detrimental to many communities. I hope the FSF can approach other kernel devs in time and let their opinions be heard.

As to democratic processes: come on, Ingo. If somebody accused Linus of "creating a kernel development process which is not democratic", what would you think? Stallman has been the "benevolent dictator" of the FSF since the beginning (even though is benevolence has not always been appreciated by everyone), now is not the time to complain.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:58 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (2 responses)

If somebody accused Linus of "creating a kernel development process which is not democratic", what would you think? Stallman has been the "benevolent dictator" of the FSF since the beginning (even though is benevolence has not always been appreciated by everyone), now is not the time to complain.

the big difference is: if you are unhappy with Linus you can fork the Linux codebase and try your luck. That keeps Linus honest and sharp every day. If he messes up, people will leave his project.

On the other hand the FSF licensing process cannot be "forked". What RMS decides goes into the GPLv3. No matter what the "Committees" do, or what the "comment submitters" do. There's no competitive pressure whatsoever to keep him honest or sharp.

Look at the RMS quotes i linked to: "Most of our community does not believe in free software". And the GPLv3 process very much reflects this belief of him: RMS does not trust the community. So he (and some of his more vocal supporters) should really not be surprised if the community does not trust him.

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

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:16 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>the big difference is: if you are unhappy with Linus you can fork the Linux codebase and try your luck. That keeps Linus honest and sharp every day. If he messes up, people will leave his project.

The same goes for GNU or any GPL licensed software.

>On the other hand the FSF licensing process cannot be "forked". What RMS decides goes into the GPLv3. No matter what the "Committees" do, or what the "comment submitters" do. There's no competitive pressure whatsoever to keep him honest or sharp.

There is competitive pressure. People will simply not use it. New projects will see the wisdom in Linus' approach an go GPLv2 only or another license.

>Look at the RMS quotes i linked to: "Most of our community does not believe in free software". And the GPLv3 process very much reflects this belief of him:

What rms says or believes is largely irrelevant within the context of the GPLv3 process. The main point there is that people expect him to listen and in the end produce a license that is pallatable to a large variety of interests and still defends the four software freedoms.

Faillure to produce such a license is self-limiting. People will simply not use it.
Should he fail to defend the four freedoms, it's time to appoint another President of the FSF.

>RMS does not trust the community. So he (and some of his more vocal supporters) should really not be surprised if the community does not trust him.

Fortunately he made it so that there is no need for anyone to like him or even trust him. Or to put it another way; Larry McVoy seemed like a nice fellow. Actually, I still think he is rather charming. But I wouldn't want to rely on his software.

Believing in free software

Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:47 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

What RMS decides goes into the GPLv3.

Correct, and what Linus decides goes into Linus' tree. Nobody forces you to use the GPL; if you want to write your own license, feel free to do it. It is true that you cannot fork the GPLv2; but it is not like you have to use the exact words there, you can write a license with less text than what you have contributed on this page, or use one of the thousands in existence.

Look at the RMS quotes i linked to: "Most of our community does not believe in free software".

That quote is not exact; you had it right before: "Most of our community does not appreciate freedom". But even the second version is not so offensive; it is just a terminological issue.

From Stallman's point of view, using sometimes non-free software for convenience, preferring a more practical approach or even using the term "open source" are all signs of not appreciating freedom. The guy has been saying that for ages; it is written all over the FSF's web site, e.g. here or here.

Well, if anyone can say that, it is Stallman. He has been fighting the good fight for longer than many of us have been alive. You can choose to believe that he does not trust the community, or you can view him as a grandpa saying from his armchair: "you youngsters do not value the freedoms we earned at WWII".

Torvalds himself has repeatedly said that he values practical concerns above freedom; often he has only gone the freedom route when forced to. So have many kernel devs; so have you in these pages (when you said that breaking DRM could be seen in a bad light and it was not worth it). If you want to see that as mistrust, and burn the bridges, please do not do it; we all lose.