Linus was always bitchy...

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:01 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
In reply to: Linus was always bitchy... by mingo
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

That's a pretty silly comment really.

You may not care that your code is used on TiVo-like devices where you can't substitute your own, modified version and run that instead, but if others do, what's wrong with that? Code I write is *my* code, and I can put it under any license I want to, so you shouldn't tell me I cannot use a license to "retaliate". I'd already be giving TiVo something they'd not have otherwise - they right to use my code, if they meet certain requirements -, so they'd not be a position to complain.

What's more, I think that for those who're not really interested in the technical details of licenses and who just want the "tit for tat" that Linus mentioned, the fact that it's perfectly legal for TiVo to use their code and, at the same time, prevent them from modifying the resulting work may be an unpleasant surprise.

For me, the restrictions the GPLv3 introduces in that regard are no more unacceptable than the GPLv2's requirements that source code be shipped in the "preferred form for modification" - you could also argue that that's unfair to those who'd rather send you the source on microfiche than as a tarball, but nobody in their right mind would do that.

Why is the whole DRM thing different? It all boils down to my actually being able to *use* the source code I received; if I cannot use it, the whole "tit for tat" collapses like a house of cards.

So if Linus is really interested in "tit for tat" and fairness, then I'm not sure why he's opposed to this.

DRM again

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:17 UTC (Tue) by mingo (guest, #31122) [Link]

That's a pretty silly comment really.

Thank you Guest for the polite injection into this discussion ;-)

You may not care that your code is used on TiVo-like devices where you can't substitute your own, modified version and run that instead, but if others do, what's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that, i'm just trying to point out the implicit dangers of such licensing approaches to the free software community.

Or by your argument there's nothing wrong with people wanting to sell their monopolized, closed-source software for $75 apiece either, just because it's their code, right?