Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center chairman Eben Moglen to issue a 'renewed invitation' yesterday to kernel developers to participate in the GPLv3 process. Linus Torvalds responded to Moglen's statement by saying that his position on the license is clear and that he's "fed up" with the FSF.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-12-31
Member since:2006-03-31
He cant. He has said so. So why does he keep commenting about it and talking about it. Who is forcing this issue on him? Who is ramming V3 down his throat? He has already proved it is impossible. It won't happen. It can't happen. Why does he feel the need to keep talking trash about it since it won't apply to him at all? Ask yourself that...
Why does he feel the need to complain about something that is a non-issue for him? Why does he keep on and on...
Is it just tomake RMS look bad, to fracture and splinter the community more, to make sure he wins finally wins the torvalds/stallman battle?
Is it all that?
Is it so that RMS will finally sit down with him and work it out so they can fork that sucker. PLEASE GOD SAY YES! Won't we allbe happy when the FSF has their v3 kernel and OSI has theirs under the LPL? Yes YEs I think we will....
Member since:2006-01-06
He cant. He has said so. So why does he keep commenting about it and talking about it. Who is forcing this issue on him? Who is ramming V3 down his throat? He has already proved it is impossible. It won't happen. It can't happen. Why does he feel the need to keep talking trash about it since it won't apply to him at all? Ask yourself that...
Because Linus obviously has an interest in promoting open source development and feels strongly that GPLv3 is a hindrance to that goal, for the reasons specified in the paper. The guy has a right to his opinion, which is wholly independent of whether the Linux kernel can be reissued under GPLv3. Linking the two is your contrivance, not his.
Member since:2005-07-24
why does he keep commenting about it and talking about it. Why does he feel the need to keep talking trash about it since it won't apply to him at all? Ask yourself that...
Why does he feel the need to complain about something that is a non-issue for him? Why does he keep on and on...
Quite simply: because he was asked to. Indirectly by the FSF (but he didn't react because he felt he had already made his point), and directly by the guy who wrote the article.
Reading how the FSF makes it sound like they're doing the kernel developers a huge favour by asking them about their opinions, after mostly ignoring the issues that were actually raised in the position paper, I can see how that can be frustrating for the kernel developers.
I don't see a "torvalds/stallman battle" here, and afaik neither party is interested in forking (assuming that is at all possible, which is doubtful).
Member since:2005-06-29
The Linux kernel is the most popular GPL software out there in the wild. It's the FSF's flagship product. Before Linux, the FSF was pretty much unknown. You can can safely bet the FSF will try to force Linus into making Linux adhere to the GPL3 license. If Linus won't do it then they'll go thru the other kernel devs.
Politics/<people's ideals always interfere where it's not needed. Just like in real life(TM).
Member since:2005-07-07
"Politics/<people's ideals always interfere where it's not needed. Just like in real life(TM)."
Fortunately the world has both pragmatists and idealists. "TIVOization" , if it happens with PCs, may not be trivial to circumvent. I am concerned that you may have to build your own computer, which for me and many others would be problematic, just to be able to run free software. The demand for open computing platforms may not be such that enough manufacturers will care to provide them. At any rate Stallman and Torvalds are both accomplished programmers and their opinions should be respected.
Member since:2006-09-01
Locking down hardware so far has only been about black box devices, like DVRs. I have a very difficult time believing that without GPL3, we're all doomed to Windows-only computers forever and ever. Besides, too many manufacturers have already sunk too much money into Linux for that to happen (with the aid of GPL *2*, btw).
I don't think predicting doom and gloom in the absence of a new GPL is wise or realistic.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2006-01-07
Despite all the drama over Linus saying that he's "fed up with the FSF," his position is pretty clear and, I think, reasonable.
As it is, the GPLv3 limits a program that uses it very fundamentally more than Tivo _ever_ limited Linux. Tivo never limited the way Linux could be used by others. The GPLv3 tries to limit how a project can be used. The GPLv3 is the one that really limits your freedoms, not the other way around.
And as the above poster pointed out, Linus wouldn't be in a legal position to simply change the license of the Linux kernel. Other developers worked on it in the past, and continue to work on it. Thus, they would all have to agree to any license change. At least in regards to the Linux kernel, the GPLv3 is a non-starter. For people writing new applications, it's a different story - they can choose whatever license they like.
Member since:2005-10-08
"And as the above poster pointed out, Linus wouldn't be in a legal position to simply change the license of the Linux kernel. Other developers worked on it in the past, and continue to work on it. Thus, they would all have to agree to any license change."
No, they wouldn't. Because GPL2 contains a clause that allows a third party to re-release the code under the current version, or at their option, and future version of the GPL license. So Torvalds could, if he wanted to, license all of the code in the Linux kernel under the GPL3 whether the original authors agreed to it or not.
That said, I'm glad Torvalds has taken a stand against the the FSF. The FSF is has gone from being an advocacy group for software rights, to becoming such an extremist group that it is now harmful rather then helpful to the free software movement.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-03-31
yep linus took it out - without consulting as he callsit "all the linux kernel devleopers in the universe dead or alive or in a different plane of existance" 
Okay I might have made that up.
Each persons code stands on its own. The whole is supposedly licensed as v2 but each individuals code may be v2 or it may be 'v2 or later'
Alan Cox said years ago that any code he submitted should be v2 or later.
Member since:2005-12-31
> No, they wouldn't. Because GPL2 contains a clause that
> allows a third party to re-release the code under the
> current version, or at their option, and future version
> of the GPL license. So Torvalds could, if he wanted to,
> license all of the code in the Linux kernel under the
> GPL3 whether the original authors agreed to it or not.
Could you quote that clause? So far, I always thought the GPL (intentionally) doesn't contain such a clause, and that authors who want to allow switching have to explicitly allow it *outside* the GPL v2 (which was *not* done with many files in Linux).
Member since:2005-10-08
"Could you quote that clause? So far, I always thought the GPL (intentionally) doesn't contain such a clause"
Paragraph 9 reads as follows:
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Member since:2005-08-26
Member since:2006-09-01
Linus has made it very clear several times that the 'or later version' and any related clauses that may allow you to 'upgrade' licenses automatically were completely removed from the license that is distributed with the Linux kernel.
The only way to for the kernel to change licenses is if every living being who ever contributed to kernel gave their okay.
So the issue is pretty moot, anyway.
Member since:2006-03-20
Because GPL2 contains a clause that allows a third party to re-release the code under the current version, or at their option, and future version of the GPL license.
But this clause was removed from the kernel version of the license, so it doesn't apply. Why would a hard working developer want to turn over the future of his code to some FSF politician? They would have to be nuts! And Linus is far from nuts.
Member since:2005-10-08
Member since:2006-01-03
"Because GPL2 contains a clause that allows a third party to re-release the code under the current version, or at their option, and future version of the GPL license."
GPLv2 doesn't contain such a clause. That snippet is part of the boilerplate text that developers use to say which licence covers their work, which isn't the license itself, it is just a referral to the real licence (which can be, "v2 or later" or just v2 if the developer chooses so).
Member since:2006-05-09
As it is, the GPLv3 limits a program that uses it very fundamentally more than Tivo _ever_ limited Linux. Tivo never limited the way Linux could be used by others. The GPLv3 tries to limit how a project can be used. The GPLv3 is the one that really limits your freedoms, not the other way around.
That's exactly what the BSDL guys have been saying about the BSDL all along! Nice to see that even the GPL folks are finally seeing the light.
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:
2005-07-23
Member since:2006-03-31
Feel free to do that. Please feel free to head down that path that leads to companies being in control and doing what they want. I for one choose free software.
I bet you are really upset that the whole reason you have this OS is because of something you do not believe in - free software.
Member since:2006-09-01
...and you are wrong. Well, you're only partially right.
"I bet you are really upset that the whole reason you have this OS is because of something you do not believe in - free software."
The fact is that the linux kernel would be nothing without the major corporate contributions it has received in the past. The linux kernel is what it is because the GPL2 encourages entities of different backgrounds (ie both people and corporations) to contribute code. Without IBM/Novell/Red Hat/Adaptec/Intel, Linux would be like GNU/Hurd which, if you're so adamant about Free Software, you should stop bothering us Linux-lovers and go use.
If you want to know what Linux would like without cooperation between both individuals and corporations, then take a look at Hurd. If that's what you want, then take it. I want nothing to do with a barely functional piece of junk. Oh yeah, "Free" junk. Sometimes you get what you pay for.
Corporations aren't 'evil.' In fact, a lot of companies have been pretty goddamned generous to the open source movement, and now you're basically telling them 'thanks for the free code, now f--k off.' Way to go.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-08-06
Seriously, I can't seem to understand what's the big deal about this GPL 3 vs GPL 2 thing. Why does it have to be a conflict at all?
RMS and others have identified what they recon to be a problem. They develop GPL 3.
Linus and others seem to like GPL 2 as it is. They seem to prefer that license.
Here is a solution for you 2 sides. USE WHATEVER YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR OWN STUFF!!!!!
I personally prefer MIT/BSD, others might prefer LGPL and if some prefer different version of GPL, is it really such a big deal? Who cares? Seriously? Just respect eachothers decisions and get back to coding!
Member since:2006-01-03
The problem isn't the GPLv3 per se. The problem is the large quantities of code out there, licensed under a "v2 or later" GPL.
People throught "oh yes, the next version of the GPL will be just like v2, we trust the FSF". Instead, people are finding the FSF unworthy of that trust, because they are making use of the popularity of the GPL to push their fundamentalist agenda.
Many people are now thinking about what will happen when people begin to distribute their code combined with GPLv3-only modifications (thus creating a GPLv3-only derived work), especially because they don't like the GPLv3 (as it looks now).
Member since:2005-07-15
>People throught "oh yes, the next version of the GPL will be just like v2, we trust the FSF". Instead, people are finding the FSF unworthy of that trust, because they are making use of the popularity of the GPL to push their fundamentalist agenda.
How do you come to such conclusion?
Maybe people throught "oh yes, the next version of the GPL protect the freedom in the future as good as GPLv2, we trust the FSF". And now they are really happy with the progress about GPLv3 because it closes the loopholes which were created through new technology and new laws.
Not possible? Why? Because Linus Torvalds makes a lot of noise? But where are all the other large "GPLv2 or later"-projects if the GPLv3 process is really as bad as you suggest?
Member since:
2005-11-15
Stallman has very lofty ideals and made tons of software available to us.
We may or may not agree with GPL v3, but he has every right to alter his software license as he sees fit. Remember, he's trying to protect developers and users, in other words, us.
What keeps Linus and other developers to keep using GPL v2, or any other license, for their software?
When, or if further development of GNU software (binutils, gcc and thousand others) is done under GPL v3 and is deemed unworkable, we can fork the versions harking back from GPL v2. Such is the power that Stallman put in our hands!
Member since:2005-10-08
"Remember, he's trying to protect developers and users, in other words, us."
As a professional software developer, I do not agree with this at all. Stallman is in no way protecting my rights as a developoer. He is trying to, with GPL3, strongarm me into playing his game the exact way he wants it to be played, and face consequences that could literally kill my business if I don't play it that way.
I was saying months ago what the Linux kernel developers just started to say last week. GPL3 will kill open source software if it becomes widely adopted. The risks of using open source software are simply too high under the GPL3.
Member since:2006-01-24
-"I was saying months ago what the Linux kernel developers just started to say last week. GPL3 will kill open source software if it becomes widely adopted. The risks of using open source software are simply too high under the GPL3"
what are those risks? do you hold software patents? are you using DRM to deny the end-users the right to be able to modify and run GPL'ed code? or what? please explain.
Member since:2005-10-08
Member since:2005-10-02
No, they don't.
The vast majority of companies residing primarily in USA do. Even some danish software companies have patents in USA. This is necessary to protect themselves in USA. They don't need the protection outside USA, and they don't have patents outside USA.
One might wonder, why they need Government granted protection in USA, when companies thrive without them outside USA.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-03-31
Member since:2005-10-08
"Strong arming you how? Has he hooked you into the GPLV3 leash? Got a rectal V3 probe? Dude you can choose not to use it...."
You haven't been following the GPL3 debate at all have you... Again, and this is the last time I am going to say it (cause I am sick of repeating myself over and over for the benefit of those who are ill informed and don't know what is going on), the patent lawsuit retaliation clauses in GPL3 are a strongarm tactic that businesses are not going to go for. And it will kill open source software in business. I've been saying it for months. And the kernel developers are saying it now as well.
Member since:2006-03-31
Member since:2005-10-02
DOOH!
There is no difference on patents in v3 vs v2. It is just explicit instead of implicit.
The difference is about DRM, and that is no different either. It is just explictit instead of implicit. You are not allowed to take away the four freedoms. And in case use of DRM takes away the four freedoms, you have to allow that people can crack your DRM. We can do that already legally, so it doesn't matter. The only difference is that we won't be take into custody upon arrival in USA.
Member since:
2005-11-05
It's pretty clear that Linus T doesn't like (or trust) the FSF and from the remarks some of the FSF folks have made, they don't like him either.
In this regard, Linus T's decision to keep well clear of the whole thing is probably very sensible and helps to keep things at a cooler temperature, shall we say.
Besides, he has a perfect right to his position on the GPL v3 and there is nothing unreasonable about it. If that's the way he feels, fine. Every other leading kernel dev bar one, I think, clearly feels the same.
I think someone summed it up roughly as not allowing TIVO-isation is a greater minus in a free society than allowing it.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-12-31
> What are the positive aspects of TIVOization? How would
> we feel if all the PCs we could buy already assembled
> came with DRM or TPM chips that restricted what OS you
> could run on your computer?
Another question: What if the main OS simply worked without tinkering? Would anyone except geeks ever *want* to use anything else?
Member since:
2006-01-24
-"That said, I'm glad Torvalds has taken a stand against the the FSF. The FSF is has gone from being an advocacy group for software rights, to becoming such an extremist group that it is now harmful rather then helpful to the free software movement."
no, it has the same stance as it always has been. it's end-user centric. that means that it gives alot of rights to the reciever of the software, and GPLv3 is a direct continuance of that. and the only DRM it goes against is that which restricts the rights of the user as outlined by copyleft. linus on the other hand, looks at it from the view of linux backing companies. and companies will want to be able to use restrictive DRM, and they do not want to give up their software patents when contributing code.
there is no right or wrong, it just depends on which side of the fence you are. just tiresome when people who lacks arguments start using words like extremists, religion etc. it's like saying linus is a corporate whore because he now steers linux to meet the demands of contributing companies.
Member since:2005-07-17
I like your comment best. RMS is looking to fix two "loopholes" in the current GPL license. First is to plug the DRM hole. After all, who'd have thought in 1991 that somebody could use free software but build hardware encryption in to prevent you from running any other software on it? The working in the orginal draft of V3 was clear, but the revision really messed it up. The argument seems to be shifting focus to digital media, not actual hardware operations. the pro-RMS crowd seems to think that you couldn't use GPL'd software to enforce DRM.. that's not true. The Tivo case is an excellent example. They encrypted their linux so all the features aren't available with the GPL'd code from their site. RMS wants all the features you sold a product with GPL to be available. Of course if recordings are encrypted for DRM you don't have to be able to read those... but if your software makes recordings you have to be able to play them back. On the patent end, RMS wants companies using GPL'd code to offically release any patents related to the code. Again, with the Tivo... They may release code under GPL, but they turn around and hold silly patents on 1-click recording and other silly stuff... that's implemented in their GPL'd code. That puts any other project that looks at that code, not even uses it, at risk.. like the DishPVR recently sued.. The Linux code is out there, but TiVo can still selectively sue who they want to prevent YOU from using OSS code they modified and released because they have a "patent" on some piece of it... kinda not in the spirit of things?
Linus comes from the "company" camp. He sees how these new rules make things "harder" for companies and he's part of the crew that actually gets the Linux OS out there and working for the people that pay the bills. Linus just wants people to use Linux..GPL was a tool to keep linux open... not a philosophy. RMS would just as soon keep Free Software where it is now, than to let it continue and get hi-jacked.
The more I do this, the more I realize that the Free Software thing is about actively seeking freedom, not just expecting it. Free Software is about presuing Free use and study of software for the sake of doing it! It's not just hoping you can keep your "fair use" rights to rip cds and play console ROMs. When you realize that patents last for 20 years and copyright "forever" unless software is explicitly put into the publics' hands by likes of the FSF you would never get to learn about such things.. no hobby tweaking for you.. it would all be a DMCA crime!
Member since:
2006-01-21
Member since:2006-04-21
Linus is being a big baby and if he keeps it up I am switching to BSD
I don't see how he's being "a big baby," but even if I did, I think that's equally childish. Besides which, even if he's being a "big baby" about DRM, you get even LESS protection from it from BSD.
Member since:2006-09-01
The anti-DRM clauses in GPL3 are more restrictive than people realize. Have you read it? It's vague enough to prohibit just about any kind of open source encryption.
Furthermore, what's so wrong about Tivo preventing you from using your DVR as anything but a DVR? The GPL3 says that even if you modify the Tivo beyond all recognition, Tivo would still have to allow you access to their online TV listing service. Talk about a huge security risk. The GPL3 has some clauses in it that are downright draconian.
Member since:2005-07-17
exactly the one flaw I see in the second draft. the first draft didn't have that language in it to make companies open their services... only that the functionality had to be reproducable. Personally, I think somebody in the middle double talked their way into inserting the changes and because it's a revision they got put thru. It's not like lawyers to let something like that slip, but it obviously did. In the orginal wording it was much like the "bnet.d" case... where people wanted to create a new service instead of the manufacure's service. I think that's what the goal was, but in an age of all the services being tied to the hardware, it's hard to say. After all, if I modify the software, should I be banned from getting chanel guides, weather reports, etc. as long as I have a vaild account shouldn't I get that anyway? Why do they need to lock me out because I wanted to change a few things?
On the other hand, the entertainment companies are demanding end-to-end encryption and this new license flies in the face of that... in that respect, I think RMS knows exactly what he's doing. FCC regulated communications has always been about Freeedom.. all the talk of "broadcast flags" and DRM flies directly in the face of that. The FCC is a "traffic cop" to keep the airwaves/power lines/etc moving smoothly, not to enforce one groups media rights over anothers. I think RMS is putting a "line in the sand" that either companies need to choose to be open.. or not... stop trying to get the free development of OSS, but tie users up on the other end.
Member since:
2005-06-29
It seems to me this is going:
FSF: We have opened for suggestions for the upcoming GPLv3
Linus: It sucks
FSF: Then please join in the debate via the proper channels
Linus: No I prefer to use my soapbox to spread my opinion
Kernel developers: We don't like the GPLv3 either, but we, like Linus, prefer to stand on our soapbox to express it rather than work with the FSF
FSF: We understand you have concerns and again invite you to join the process of deciding that is going to be the precise wording of the GPLv3
Linus: I'm fed up with you FSF people
Me: ???
It seems to me that the FSF have been more than willing to listen provided people take the time to read the document and submit comments - every comment is being reeviewed and addressed by the commitee and everything is in the open.
Member since:2006-04-02
Except that the FSF doesn't care about anyone's opinion. The FSF only cares about what the FSF thinks. From earlier statements Linus and many others all put in their two cents and the consensus was that those two cents were largely ignored.
FSF's track record for listening to others who don't have the same point of view is worse than Microsoft's security record.
Maybe when the FSF stops pushing their ideals on everyone and actually takes two minutes to listen and attempt to understand this process will go smoother.
Member since:2006-03-31
Thats because linus can say I dont like this but offers no solution beyond - just going back to V2.
It is their point of view, it is their license, what solution does linus offer THAT also takes into consideration their stand on the matter.
FSF has reasons for those parts that are new, the option to remove those are not up for debate. The best way to handle those parts are. All I see is someone screaming "I aint using it" and "it sucks" yet nothing along the lines of compromise that would work to further the FSF goals AND be palatable to Mr Linus God OF Linux.
Member since:2005-12-02
"FSF has reasons for those parts that are new, the option to remove those are not up for debate. The best way to handle those parts are. All I see is someone screaming "I aint using it" and "it sucks" yet nothing along the lines of compromise that would work to further the FSF goals AND be palatable to Mr Linus God OF Linux."
You are correct, the FSF does have reasons. after following the debate they want to basically eradicate free software, meaning free as in freedom, regardless of what they claim. The wording in the GPLv3 limits how software can be used, and GPLv2 does not. Linus and the developers have been involved, however the FSF has ignored their input, which is why Linus is fed-up. The FSF is the ones that will not compromise.
Member since:2006-01-24
DrillSgt wrote:
-"You are correct, the FSF does have reasons. after following the debate they want to basically eradicate free software, meaning free as in freedom, regardless of what they claim."
try sticking to facts instead of relying on powerful words like "freedom" to cover up your lack of arguments.
how would denying restrictive DRM equal wanting to eradicate free software?
Member since:2006-03-31
free software is still the goal and protecting against threats to it...nothing has changed
It doesn'tlimit how it can be used. It ensures certain things the way it always has. Just because someone has comeup with something that violtes the freedom of software does not mean that software freedoms has changed. GPLv2 does not because these threats did not exist then so how could it.Now they do and now it does. Still the same thing.
Protection has to equal the threats dude.
FSF doesn't have to compromise it is their license. They are willing to listen how to implement the changes better but someone has to offer the "how"not just scream about what they dont like.
Member since:2006-01-03
"Thats because linus can say I dont like this but offers no solution beyond - just going back to V2."
Solution to what problem? "Tivoisation"? Linus and other kernel developers don't acknowledge that as being a problem, so there is no need for a solution. GPLv2 is just fine.
Member since:2006-03-31
That is right they dont. But the FSF does and it goes against software freedoms so now we protect ourselves fromit. What happens when it becomes DELLisation will they sit by then and claim nothing is wrong.
Once again,okay v3 isnt liked. Dont use it. Stop bitching about it. We cool!
and obviously we have reached a impasse then, nobody wants to bend so now we break
Member since:2006-01-24
-"FSF's track record for listening to others who don't have the same point of view is worse than Microsoft's security record.
Maybe when the FSF stops pushing their ideals on everyone and actually takes two minutes to listen and attempt to understand this process will go smoother."
I'm sure they listen to linus, thing is they don't agree with him. FSF will not allow restrictive DRM, they want to protect open source projects from software patents. this is all in line with copyleft. when V2 was drafted, DRM and software patents weren't big issues, now they are. DRM allow you to bypass the end-users rights of being able to modify and run the GPL'ed code, as shown in the Tivo case. given what FSF stands for there is no way they could have accepted restrictive DRM, since it violates part of the four provisions which is the base of the GPL:
the freedom to use the software
the freedom to copy and share the software
the freedom to modify the software
the freedom to run and distribute modified software
Edited 2006-09-28 17:41
Member since:2005-08-26
Member since:2006-09-01
The FSF accepts comments, but they don't necessarily care about them. They'll 'listen' to everything Linus and the rest of kernel devs have to say, but the Tivo-isation clause isn't up for debate as far as FSF is concerned.
So why bother even talking to the FSF? If the FSF refuses to discuss with you the one major issue you have with the GPL3, then what's the point? FSF has made their voice clear.
Go Linus.
Member since:2005-08-28
The only trouble is, Linus and the kernel developers HAVE said what they don't like about the license, and Stallman and the Free Software Foundation disagree and want stuff kept in there.
If you follow the news, Linus outlined his problems with the license as soon as the first draft was released; and with every revision I see a notice on OSNews about how the license is still unsatisfactory to the kernel developers, etc etc. Clearly, neither side is willing to make changes.
Member since:
2006-03-31
Member since:2006-03-20
let me say it one more time....
fork.fork.fork.fork.
Fork what? The kernel is under the GPLv2 without an upgrade clause. The GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 license, so the kernel code can't be used under the later license. If Hurd goes under the new license it will have to rip out all the drivers they borrowed from Linux. Likewise, I expect that glibc and perhaps gcc would fork to remain freer for the developers, after all, gcc forked previously to get away from meddling. The latter could be tricky, though, as the FSF required developers to sign over the copyright to *their* work. Talk about unwitting slavery and exploitation! Strangely, developers who do the work don't take kindly to being exploited for political ends.
But you are certainly welcome to fork, just do it. Just don't expect *other* people to fork because you command them to do so.