Posted on 10/23/2006 9:07:01 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Stallman is definitely in the position of power, since most of the developers of the GPL software currently in Linux adhere to his anti-DRM philosophy, and are likely convert to GPL3 in order to advance that philosophy. IBM and others can attempt to combat that, but only if they are willing to take on the significant expenses of forking those products and maintaining them independently. I'm sure you're aware of how difficult that will actually be, especially with products Linux is completely dependent on such as gcc.
Forking various GNU projects has very little, if any, monetary impact to most of those involved. The key capital in these projects is the contributions of the current key developers. Wherever their code goes, so goes the project.
According to Linux, in a posting Sept 29, 2006 on lkml, when challenged by Andrew Tridgell <tridge@samba.org> on his suggestions that major GNU projects, such as gcc, would fork:
Quite frankly, the FSF isn't actually doing any of the work for any of the tools it maintains any more. And hasn't for a long while.Hint: look up the glibc maintainers opinions on some of these same issues in the past. They had reason to clash with the FSF over a _much_ smaller license change (LGPL 2 -> 2.1).
The issue is not gpl software the issue is what software does stallman own the copyright on and maintain.
They can of course "fork it", but then they are left with having to completely manage all those pieces themselves, and with the tiny income that free software provides these companies it may not be possible.
Yea there is no way IBM can afford to maintain the fork of software under gpl2 that stallman copyrights /sarcasm. Between IBM, RedHat, Novell, and HP there is more than enough cash out there for a 'gpl2 foundation'..
Yea, it really stuck in his craw when people started saying Linux instead of GNU/Linux..
Thanks, I'm very aware free software coders aren't being paid by the FSF, but as you indicated the FSF does still in many cases have those copyrights assigned to them because the developers believe in the FSF philosophy, and Stallman of course is the creator of the FSF.
Your comment was "There are currently over 5,000 such GNU software packages, as listed at FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory. These packages are critical to all BSD and Linux based systems, including Mac OS X. FSF owns this code.". That is Stallman's power, and unless that Army of developers suddently decides they'd rather commercial companies like IBM etc benefit from their work, instead of advancing Stallman's vision for free software, they will continue coding for the FSF and hence the GPL3.
I've not heard of any major GPL product other than the linux kernel that is advocating sticking with GPL2, there may be some, but are almost certainly a minority in the 5,000 different packages you cited, are they not?
We'll see since that "free software" would suddenly get a lot more expensive. Only IBM and HP have anything resembling deep pockets, and both of those companies still sell Unix as their high end product.
IBM supports the samba team and their own army of developers. *YOU* have said RedHat has 'literally hundreds of kernel developers'.
They're not easily bought off by bribe
So let them maintain a set of GNU tools for HURD in the mean time IBM and other companies will set up a foundation to maintain the forks if they don't decide to opt for direct control. You spit on the whole OSS community so believe me when I say Linux has a much larger following than Stallman.
so unless those companies are willing to invest the billions to rewrite or manage those products independently, Stallman is in the position of power.
They don't need to rewrite, they can fork and I would be willing to bet IBM will put the money need (it wont be billions). Stalman will learn what SCO is learning, IBM does not screw around when it comes to people who try and mess with their business..
For the last time, free is not about cash. I pay for every Linux server my company runs.
The Samba team doesn't work for IBM and haven't said anything about sticking with GPL2. Yes IBM has an army of other developers directly employed but they already have other assignments, and gearing up to replace the GNU environment is not something they tack on in their spare time LMAO. So what about kernel devs, we already know they may be sticking with GPL2, but that appears to be it.
So let them maintain a set of GNU tools for HURD
I already pointed out they don't have to, Stallman can use the GPL2 version of the kernel and still make anti-DRM Linux, the only thing that seems assured at this point.
I would be willing to bet IBM will put the money need (it wont be billions)
We'll see, but money doesn't grow on trees and the group IBM already is already funding for the kernel - OSDL - suffered layoffs just last year.
I use FreeBSD some myself on desktops, but Sun is already seeing a resurgence and now even HP and IBM are selling servers with Solaris on there, while no major hardware company other than Apple is currently shipping pure BSD. At least none that I know of, so it would have a long way to go to catch up with Solaris.
His FSF holds copyright, but he licensed it under GPLv2.
Once he, or anyone, does that, they no longer control the use of software, so long as GPLv2 license terms are followed.
That "army of coders" bloody well doesn't code for Stallman. We code for various reasons, and get paid various ways. A well known computer company pays my salary, for instance. I'm sure as h**l not coding for Stallman's vision of the world. Most likely some small bit of my code is in that pile of GNU software, under FSF copyright, but Stallman has no power over our continued use of it. It is published under GPLv2, and you, me or anyone else can use, modify and distribute it, under the terms of that license.
I'm not currently actively involved in any GPL project other than the Linux kernel, so I can't tell you what will happen. But I'd expect work to continue on the GPLv2 available code, for all projects of interest.
There is way too much money, from too many big players, involved in this by now, and FSF has no choke hold, nor any significant resources, with which to change that now.
All it will take is for one of the major players to determine that they cannot accept GPLv3 code, and the die will be cast. Continue to code for GPLv2 distribution, and your code will be available to all. Let FSF take that copyright for any new code, and your code is on a dead end to nowhere.
It's not a fork if everyone goes one way.
"It's not a fork if everyone goes one way."
quote of the thread...
Well right now it looks like out of the 5,000 packages you linked, only 1 product, the kernel group which you would be considered a member, has said they are going to stick with GPL2. For the third time now, who else, what other major GPL product has come out against GPL3? Right now it appears to only be ~1 in 5,000, so with the continued absence of anything contrary that would indeed appear to be everyone going one way, towards GPL3. Unfortunately, of course, but as I would expect since they typically sign their copyrights over to him anyway.
Maybe when they finish GPL3 we will know..
Don't ask me though what other projects will do. I have no inside knowledge except for the kernel (and even what I know there is quite public.)
I can just see where the power lies. And it is not with FSF.
Thanks, I was hoping you knew of at least one other group that is publicly opposing Stallman, but if the current tally is 0 out of 5,000 FSF projects sounds like he is definitely in the driver's seat.
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.