Linus explains why open source works
OfflineRarely do we see deeper insights into the way Linus Torvalds thinks about Free Software and Open Source. It's usually quotes of his mailing list posts being taken out of context to portray whatever a given journalist wanted to portray (usually something quite sensationalist and controversial, to generate ad money).
But, Linux.com has an interesting one here: Linus explains why open source works.
This seems especially interesting:
For Torvalds, the problem with the provisions for patent-sharing and for restricting the use of lockdown technologies -- what the Free Software Foundation prefers to call TiVoization -- is that they keep some people out of the free exchange of ideas that characterizes open source. "That's the whole point of open source -- different people and entities have different goals, and the very differences are what makes it work well for everybody," he says. "Anybody who tries to hobble science by saying that they won't share information with people they dislike (the military, for example) is seen as an obvious crackpot and idiot. The same, to me, is true of open source."
So, the problem with GPLv3 and hence FSF's stance in general is that they dare to strategically isolate people whose goals are perceived as harmful to the sharing economy that exists in a legal space that GPL creates.
He seems to be one of belief that if we simply let them all do as they wish it will all somehow come together for the betterment of all. That is if I understood it correctly. I think this is a view which is always easy to sympathize, but it somehow too often tends to clash with what is happening in the real world.
Does this mean that following selfish interests is enough to have prosperity for all? What about regards for some basic ethical standards? If I understood his reasoning correctly, one can pursue his self interest with all the tools and ways available regardless of how it affects others. Even if this is not what he is saying, I think it easily spirals to that.
FSF creates a license, not a law. A license is something that can be chosen. It is not imposed. Therefore anyone who wants to pursue whatever goal can evaluate that license and decide whether it fits their goals or not. FSF made GPLv3 explicitly (with GPLv2 it was implicitly) incompatible with the goals which involved ways to disrupt the balances in the sharing economy that GPL allows for.
So I suppose the reason why Linus is mad at GPLv3 is because it made what was previously merely an implicit expectation into an actual hard requirement. Considering the goals of the FSF from the very beginning, if he knew FSF any better, he would have perfectly expected GPLv3 to make such expectations into requirements (implicit into explicit).
Overall, I think there is too much perception among the FOSS community of FSF as some form of "government". Do they ascribe so much authority to FSF that they mistake it for a government entity? I've seen so many comments accusing FSF of coercion, taking away freedom by imposing their own version of the truth and whatnot.. and yet it is just an organization which provides a set of licenses that it believes are right for people to use - if they so choose.
Anyway, what do you think?
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
Copyright © 2004 - 2008 Libervis Network - Some Rights Reserved :: Advertise :: Privacy Policy :: Contact
The combination of the quote and your commentary make me think Linus's in a way an anarchist; though from that I would expect him to use the MIT license and not choose the GPLv2. In the end Linus cares about the product, the quality of the code - if it works, how many bugs it has, how many architectures it covers - rather than any possible moral aspect software could have (and this is nothing new). And 'Open Source' is the best way he's found to achieve this goal.
But I still don't see total selfishness as a way to better prosperity for all. To disregard fellow man just for yourself feels wrong, it doesn't adhere to the phrase a thing uses to describe free software whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't sink mine - that is selfishness but only to an extent that it isn't detrimental to others.
The FSF do have some kind of authority in the world of Free Software, it was set up by rms who started the GNU project and who wrote or co-wrote the GPLs. Many people dislike rms's way of advocacy and find him a bit weird, but others respect him for sticking to his guns. The FSF are no more than a charity (iirc) which lobbies organisations and supports hackers etc. they also try and enforce their licenses. They use the power of national (and super-national) laws to enforce their licenses, they have no power in themselves; much of their perceived power comes from the wide spread use of their license.
People may see the FSF as a 'government' type organisation, they equate free software to the FSF instead of thinking of free software as a higher goal which doesn't need organisations such as the FSF to exist. As you say libervisco we all have a choice of which license to use; we don't have to choose one by the FSF. By our choosing we give the FSF some kind of 'power' - as I've said - by using their licenses. People may accuse the FSF etc. of coercion, but it doesn't dictate which licenses you are allowed to use.
reply quote
Where would Free Software be without Linus?
The Hurd timescale and micro v monolithic kernel issues aside, his 'good cop' role (from the perspective of big business) and that of others has smoothed the way for the spread of GPLv2 - more usage, more development man-hours. On the back of that now we have consumer pc's shipping from major suppliers with a GPLv2 OS. Credit to the FSF of course, but some for Linus et al too in fairness.
His arguments absolutely suggest he'd prefer the MIT license, but if that were really true surely the kernel crew would have changed over to it long ago. Software patents are a far bigger problem to my mind than the language of diplomacy or apparent opposition to the FSF. The soap opera is irrelevant to me, will he continue to help to propagate GPLv2 or even better, eventually come around to going with the GPLv3.
I suspect he'll wait until another Tivo like incident occurs, and use that to justify an apparently grudging move to gplv3 as the lesser of two evils. He made an interesting point elsewhere that to protect his children from online predators he wants to be able to lock down his hardware to an extent, but I find it hard to take that at face value, looks like a strawman he plans to knock down later. Maybe I'm wrong about him, time will tell if these things come to pass.
reply quote
His arguments absolutely suggest he'd prefer the MIT license, but if that were really true surely the kernel crew would have changed over to it long ago.
The thing is Linus != the Linux kernel. I believe that the GPLing of code has made it more accessible to a wider variety of hackers and not all these hackers would like the use of the MIT license on the kernel they would contribute to. Thus, despite what he may believe personally he can't risk the whole project for it and go for a 'looser' license. If what I say is correct, it again shows the strength of the GPL and its buy-in in the developer community despite the restrictions it places.
reply quote
All well said. I definitely agree democrates that we should leave some credit for Linus for what he has contributed. He may have different views and different (albeit similar) goals, but they clashed with Free Software well enough to significantly help put it on the map.
We could say that this proves his theory that everyone should be let to pursue their own goals, no matter the differences, and that this will in the end result in something good. However, the differences between Linus's philosophy and FSFs don't seem as profound for his pursuit to end up hurting anyone's freedom as much as goals of certain others can - those who, unlike Linus, don't care so much about good code NOR ethics, but rather control and profits. That is where his philosophy breaks down.
So, as you mentioned dylunio it just must come down to that good old principle. "Whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't sink mine". The second part matters just as much as the first.
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
reply quote
Post new comment