Stallman: If you want freedom don't follow Linus Torvalds(whackjob alert)

Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats.

Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him.

Richard Stalin *COUGH* I mean Stallman is absolutely nuts. But he's right about this. That Torvalds says 'OSS' and not 'FS' does show where he's coming from.

Torvalds has long shown that he's a pragmatic type of guy, his main goal is good software that works. His use of the term 'OSS' proves it.

Stalin just wants software to be free for some religious edict of his; free for "freedom's" sake.(I'm sure all my fellow freepers can understand why I put freedom in quotes here)

Torvalds continues to prove that he doesn't look through the religious looking glass. He's looking through the superior product looking glass.

Torvalds has long shown that he's a pragmatic type of guy, his main goal is good software that works. His use of the term 'OSS' proves it.

Its more than just that. Thorvald's believes in freedom for users *and* developers. E.G. if you develop hardware you don't have to open it up just because you put oss software on it. If you deny developers freedom eventually you will choke out users from having any quality software.

Stallmans madness works in a developers only community with small tools but it does not work when your trying to put out a platform for users and businesses like Linux. Hey stallman, there is a reason HURD cant get off the ground.

“Apparently the BSD crowd are less communist than Sun microsystems.

(I’m told by someone around here who is very reliable that the GPL = communism. Which makes sense, because RMS = communist)”

Neither are really true. The BSD license states that as long as you give the BSD foundation and their developers credit, you can do anything you want with the source code. If you want to take BSD code and build a proprietary product around it, the BSD license lets you. You don’t have to show your code to anyone if you don’t want to. Your only obligation is to give the BSD people some credit. That’s it. That’s REAL software freedom.

The GPL is somewhat socialist, but version 2 is light years better than the new version 3. GPL states that you can do whatever you want with the code that you alter, but if you distribute software from that code, then you MUST also distribute the changes you made to the public. What’s bad about v3 is that it now tells you what you can and cant do with your own software when it comes to digital rights management. That’s why Linus opposes it.....its micromanaging the users.

IMHO, BSD is better for total freedom and business use, GPL v2 is better if you want to make sure your project is shared among everyone (kind of like non-profit work).

I wouldn’t touch GPL v3 with a 10 foot pole.

If Torvalds loses this fight, watch BSD adoption shoot through the roof.

There's no real way Linus can "lose" and the only person fighting is Stallman. Forcibly renaming our architecture GNU/Linux or Linux/GNU is not appreciated by many of us. Contrast XEmacs' behavior regarding architecture (which I had control over at the time) with other software projects using GNU configure.

The core Linux kernel developers do not drink FSF/Richard Stallman koolaid and the copyright to the code is owned by too many people (some of them now dead, alas) to get permission from everyone to change the license now.

if all of the libraries are GPL 3, how long can Linus hold out and keep Linux v2?

The kernel is standalone and doesn't link against any libraries (which are userland anyway and have no relation to the kernel license). I suspect you're confusing libraries with drivers or subsystems and the one "interesting" case that Linus has stated would make him consider GPL v3 might be Sun making ZFS GPL v3.

Realistically, it just isn't going to happen, because it can't without a substantial rewrite of the kernel. You must get the permission of all the copyright holders to change the license (which is GPL v2 only) and some of the developers are dead now.

I was in my own battle against Stallman over copyright assignment in XEmacs that was only about five years after the original code had been forked and found it impossible get consensus on FSF copyright assignment. So I gave up. XEmacs was still GPL which suited me fine.

Linus will find it just as impossible to get consensus amongst all the contributors to change the license to GPL v3. Not only is it a longer timeframe, but there are vastly more contributors than I had to deal with.

The only reasonable path to a GPL v3 Linux kernel would be a massive rewrite along the lines of what happened when Gosling took his bat and ball and went home and made a proprietary fork of Emacs (Unipress Emacs). Arguably, the modern GNU Emacs that resulted was greatly improved by the process, but haven't we been criticized to death already for endlessly recoding the wheel?

Do you understand that Microsoft could conceivably release a GPL v3'ed Vista kernel long before Linus could release a legal GPL v3'ed Linux kernel? That's because they own all the copyrights (I presume) to their code and Linus doesn't as the portions of the Linux kernel are owned by their various authors and patchers.

If Stallman convinces a majority of devs to pressure Torvalds (or even rebel against him), how long until he folds?

It'll never happen. I could see Stallman turning Red Hat as they are known to drink from the FSF koolaid bowl but I think the kernel developers tied to Red Hat would sever their ties with Red Hat first.

GNU Hurd is vaporware after several decades of promises. Linus made all our dreams come true. I'm involved with Open Source software because I want a system all in source code that can never be taken away from me and that I can fix myself if there's a problem. Other developers are in it for their own reasons, but I am certain that only a tiny minority are in it to "beat Microsoft".

that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3.

This isn't exactly a big secret. Linus chose GPL v2 because it suited his goal, tit-for-tat, perfectly - "You get my source, I want any changes you make to it in return." See the lkml for an exact quote. Works for me even if it doesn't exactly match my own goals.

My question in response is, why doesn't Stallman trust his own license? Hmm?

I am not a communist. I use the barter system to pay for my software. I download the open source, build and install it and if it doesn't work right, I send patches back to the maintainers or work with them to get it fixed.

I am also not a dictator and my record speaks for itself (see the history of XEmacs between 1996 and 2000 when I did start out as a total dictator). I am also not entirely opposed to proprietary software - I took the responsibility of making sure that Omron's Wnn6 worked with XEmacs (a brilliant product that I wish they sold in north america).

Lastly, I have no love of Richard Stallman, but misspelling his last name does you no favors and makes you look silly like the Hittlary's and M$'s etc, etc.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.