Yet another thread about Linus and GPLv3
OfflineConsidering how popular and sought for he seems to be I tend to be quite interested in insights into Linus' way of thinking, especially how his thinking relates to Free Software and GPLv3 as its legal embodiment specifically, where most of the controversy came about. His answers to the two of the questions from this interview seem quite revealing to me.
So to me, the GPLv2 ends up being a wonderful balance of 'as free as you can make it', considering that I do want everybody to be able to trust so that they can always get the source code and use it.
Which is why I think the GPLv3 ends up being a much less interesting licence. It's no longer about that trust about "getting the source code back"; it has degenerated into a "I wrote the code, so I should be able to control how you use it."
In other words, I just think the GPLv3 is too petty and selfish. I think the GPLv2 has a great balance between 'freedom' and 'trust'. It's not as free as the BSD licences are, but it gives you peace of mind in return, and matches what I consider 'tit-for-tat': I give source code, you give me source code in return.
The GPLv3 tries to control the 'use' of that source code. Now it's, "I give you my source code, so if you use it, you'd better make your devices hackable by me." See? Petty and small-minded, in my opinion.
Frankly I still think he is misunderstanding the issue here. GPLv3 tries to put control over software back in the hands of the user and ensure that it stays there. Instead of what he portrays, it's this way: "I give you my source code, so if you use it, you'd better make my devices hackable by me." Subtle huh? 
Therefore easy to miss. GPLv3 licensor doesn't care about the devices owned by their vendor. It cares about the devices which are owned by the user, after they've been purchased.
Man.. I find myself really wanting to have a serious discussion with Linus about that. I wonder if he would ever bend on this one. 
But anyway, if anyone still thinks Linus feels adamantly against GPLv3 as if it was some sort of an evil license, clear your mind from the stupid media propaganda and misrepresentations and read this, his words:
I think it is much improved over the early drafts, and I don't think it's a horrible licence. I just don't think it's the same kind of 'great' licence that the GPLv2 is.
So in the absence of the GPLv2, I could see myself using the GPLv3. But since I have a better choice, why should I?
That said, I try to always be pragmatic, and the fact that I think the GPLv3 is not as good a licence as the GPLv2 is not a 'black and white' question. It's a balancing act. And if there are other advantages to the GPLv3, maybe those other advantages would be big enough to tilt the balance in favour of the GPLv3.
Quite frankly, I don't really see any, but if Solaris really is to be released under the GPLv3, maybe the advantage of avoiding unnecessary non-compatible licence issues could be enough of an advantage that it might be worth trying to re-license the Linux kernel under the GPLv3 too.
Don't get me wrong -- I think it's unlikely. But I do want to make it clear that I'm not a licence bigot, per se. I think the GPLv2 is clearly the better licence, but licences aren't everything.
After all, I use a lot of programs that are under other licences. I might not put a project I start myself under the BSD (or the X11-MIT) licence, but I think it's a great licence, and for other projects it may well be the right one.
So basically, what the hell, if it turns out beneficial in terms of being able to share between Solaris and Linux, why not switch to GPLv3. Apparently he realizes that despite the added requirements GPLv3 still retains a sufficient amount of what he liked about GPLv2 for him not to dismiss the new license.
This also reveals one other interesting thing. He has repeatedly stated, in that interview, that he cares only about the technology and technical issues, not politics, not even business and apparently not even the legal stuff. I think it might be useful to bear this in mind when reading his opinions with implications beyond mere technological issues - what you read is said by a man who admits that he doesn't want to deal with this. Therefore these opinions don't matter to him as much as certain technical convictions may.
What this leads to is this: he can change his mind very quickly. Today he may consider the added restrictions in GPLv3 to be petty and selfish, yet tomorrow when he actually "waits for it and sees" (which is another part of his way) what happens with it, he might in fact stand behind as fully as he is behind GPLv2.
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
Copyright © 2004 - 2008 Libervis Network - Some Rights Reserved :: Advertise :: Privacy Policy :: Contact
Very nice comments on Linus'x opinions about GPLv3. It's very good to know the subtleties of his arguments.
See you, Rijik.
reply quote
Thanks Rijik. Good to see you around.
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
reply quote
I've read Linus's arguements about the GPL v3, and Free Software in general. Despite the media "hyping" him up as hating the v3, I think he's still problematic.
For Linus, Linux isn't Free Software. That was NEVER his goal, and he's very clear about that.
GNU GPL v2 fit his needs, GNU GPL v3 is VERY clearly reframing the INTENT of the GNU GPL.
Linus's intent isn't to keep the kernel Free, it's to keep the kernel's source viewable. Even if it's locked down with DRM and the user has no control of their systems, Linus doesn't care.
reply quote
Ah man, you're probably right. Now how problematic and in what way he really is I'm not sure. I can understand how he can seem problematic to the Free Software movement considering how vocal he can be, even when he doesn't really intend to be so vocal. Media still likes to treat him like the freaking poster boy of a movement they call Open Source, no matter which movement they actually mean nor if they even know what movement they're talking about.
But anyway, if he doesn't care a sufficient amount of other kernel developers may care enough not to let the kernel really go astray from really being Free Software into being vaguely "Open Source" (literally, with only source code). Also, Linus said that he wants to keep all the code he writes as Open Source and changes are he at least really means Open Source according to OSI's actual definition, which may in most cases be close enough to Free Software.
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
reply quote
I'm not condemning Linus. He's a noted programmer, and a pretty damn good project manager. He's written Free Software, even if he doesn't consider it to be such.
I just think that even a lot of Free Software advocates cling to his words, when truth is, he's somewhat irrelevant. As you said, there are other developers, ones that contribute on average more code, more features and more advancement that Linus himself.
And he's very clear on that.
Linus's opinions are nothing more than opinions. I think that by blowing them up ourselves, we make Free Software a bigger target. Part of Linus's "appeal" is that he's got the support and respect of a community behind him. Which is true, if not a bit misleading. By treating his opinions as more important than those of others, it DOES lend weight to the media's "Even Linus thinks Free Software is stupid." campaign.
reply quote
Hmm, makes sense. Maybe I should resist ranting about him every time I feel kind of provoked. Sometimes it probably pays to just go about our business and not talk about everyone who disagrees so much, especially ones which we'd like to have less attention, not more.
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
reply quote
Post new comment