|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 02:11 AM EDT |
I explain the emotions, because the legal part of the
GPLv3 makes no sense
what-so-ever if you don't
understand what is driving the
changes.
The whole notion that "Tivo is bad" is idiotic.
It's the
exact same argument as "proprietary software is
bad", and it's wrong.
It's the stupid FSF agenda that
it's about "us vs them", which has never
been
true.
Proprietary software does not take anything away from
open source. The fact that windows exists, and is
proprietary, is totally and
utterly irrelevant from an
open source angle. The proprietary people are
not
evil, they are just misguided. They think that they
can compete
better by keeping secrets, and they are wrong.
The whole point of open
source is that we can do better
than that, and that we can do so exactly because
we can
work on each others work - not on the work of the
proprietary
people. We don't need them, but they are also
not our enemies.
But more
importantly, it is their choice to not
believe us. It's not our place to
force our beliefs down
their throat - if we cannot show that we can do
better
software than they can do, then what the hell is the point
of it
all?
And the exact same thing is true of proprietary
hardware.
Tivo isn't the enemy. If you don't like their
closed hardware, just don't buy
it. Make your own.
See the exact same logic as with proprietary software?
If
you don't like proprietary software, nobody forces you to
use it or buy it,
and you can help the people that do
alternatives.
I realize that a lot
of people see this as a fight. But
I tell you, those people are missing the
point. We're not
fighting. At least the useful people aren't fighting. No
good
code ever comes out of people who do things because
they are afraid, or because
they hate. And I'm not just
sayign that because it sounds good - it's really
true. If
you make your choices because you fear somebody, you'll
make the wrong
choices.
Look at all the idiotic choices that Sun has
made wrt
Java and other things. A lot of them seem to be
directly a result not of trying
to do the right thing to
their custimer, but because of fear and loathing of
their
competition. The whole choice of their licenses seem to
not be about
trying to make the best technical choice, but
from fear of others - both
Microsoft and Linux.
And I'm sorry, but I refuse to be that
stupid.
So it all boils down to this: do you want to use a
license
that is for something good (GPLv2), or one
that is against
something bad? And I claim that
having your guiding principle to be against
something
else is not just insufferably stupid, it's also a sure way
to make
your own life miserable.
I think the GPLv2 is a very positive license.
It's
about the positive belief that together, you can make
something
better.
In contrast, every single big and fundamental addition
to the
GPLv3 is about hate and fear. What used to be a
"quid pro quo" has been turned
into a weapon. And that is
not just sad, it is counter-productive. The FSF seems
to
be actively trying to turn this into a fight, when most
of the entities
involved don't want to fight at all.
And yes, I realize that they saw
the GPLv2 as a holy
crusade too, and if you have that mindset, the new
GPLv3
just makes sense in a "let's escalate the fight" kind of
sense. Me, I just
never believed in that whole FSF idiocy.
And take it from me, the FSF
has been acting idiotic
for the last decade. Why do you think it's called
"Open
Source" in the first place? Exactly because the FSF has
made a dirty word
out of "Freedom".
And hey, if people cannot see that, it's their
problem.
I've tried to explain my standpoint, but in the end I can
just say that
hey, it's my choice. And I've talked to a
lot of kernel engineers, and quite
frankly, it's pretty
damn unanimous. The people who are spoiling for a fight
are
not the people who are actually getting things
done.
I think I've
explained about as much as I'm likely to
be able to explain. If people can't see
what's wrong with
the FSF, me standing on a soap-box won't help you.
Linus[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: larsmjoh on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 02:52 AM EDT
- Definition of "Corresponding Source" - Authored by: yscydion on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 07:21 AM EDT
- Definition of "Corresponding Source" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 08:56 AM EDT
- Definition of "Corresponding Source" - Authored by: Wol on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 10:28 AM EDT
- Deja Vu for RMS - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- Deja Vu for RMS - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- RMS and security - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Better Wording - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Better Wording - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- Time changes - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- Deja Vu for RMS - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 30 2006 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- Security - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- RMS and "closed source" - Authored by: vonbrand on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Reminds me of a PJ comment from below - Authored by: Matt C on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 11:52 AM EDT
- Definition of "Corresponding Source" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 03:01 AM EDT
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 04:26 AM EDT
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: weicco on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 05:37 AM EDT
- This debate is from "Atlas Shrugged"? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- for as long as non-restricted hardware is available - Authored by: jesse on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- Well, - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Not in my world - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 06:09 AM EDT
- DRM "Misunderstood" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- GPLv3 blocks source code release... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:41 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: luvr on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 06:34 AM EDT |
"If we rely on good will, it doesn't always work, you know, not
with big corporations and sometimes not with small ones. Money is a very big
thing to some, and they want the code, but they don't wish to give back, and
being able to modify the code is one reason it's so truly valuable. You can make
it do what you want it to do.
If you get rid of that, you've lost one of the
things that made Linux possible."
I won't claim to
understand all the issues here, but I don't believe that Linus's stand risks
"getting rid of that." After all, "one of the things that made Linux
possible" actually was the GPL v2, wasn't it?
I don't know
whether Linus is "right" or "wrong" with his objections to GPL v3;
my gut feeling tells me that GPL v2 has worked quite well for Linux so far, and
that, thus (at least for his purposes) GPL v2 seems to be a great tool.
Perhaps GPL v3 would add something important that would make it an even greater
tool for his purposes, perhaps it wouldn't; but if it would, then I'm sure that
Linus will understand when the time is right.
I do tend to agree with what
Linus says in his follow-up post--most notably:
"Proprietary
software does not take anything away from open source. The fact that windows
exists, and is proprietary, is totally and utterly irrelevant from an open
source angle."
IF you want to squash Windows, then
your best option is developing high-quality software, and if Linus is right,
then "we (i.e., Open Source) can do better than that (i.e., Proprietary
Software)" because "we can work on each others work."
The most
important point that Linus makes, in my opinion, is that "it's not our place
to force our beliefs down their throat - if we cannot show that we can do better
software than they can do, then what the hell is the point
of it all?" I
mean, just declaring that "Proprietary Software is Evil(tm), and Free
Software is Good(tm), even if it is of lower quality" won't get you
anywhere; it certainly won't make Proprietary Software go away! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
