OSNews

Hear, hear!

Even the posted quoted from InfoWeek characterizing "business-minded developers like Torvalds and free software purists." is a naive (at best), stupid (at a minimum), and misleading (hey, your bias is showing!).

I suppose this constitutes a flame. I won't defend it; this is a dead and boring subject. Maybe I'll read another GPL flamewar next year when the consequences GPL3 have played out a bit. Lets MoveOn.org OSNews...

Present for Thom! Here's a link, written by an FSFE member, about the above shitty article.

http://www.fsdaily.com/Opposition/Misleading_InformationWeek_GPLv3_...
tinyurl: http://linkpot.net/unmatched/

Controversial article = annoyed readers = more comments = more page views = more ads in your eyes = more click through = more commissions for osnews.com

This "article" was nothing short, in my opinion, of an attempt to incite an argument.

This site badly needs a function to vote articles down.

This site badly needs a function to vote articles down.

Then I'd never see any non-Linux articles.

Edited 2007-07-16 04:42

Linus never said such a thing...

So, his words on the lkml are... Fake? A joke? Posted by someone else? What?

Were his words directed at the GPL3 authors?
No, they weren't.

Were they said in a different context?
Yes, they were.

So does posting this article meat minimal journalistic standards?
No, it doesn't.

Were his words directed at the GPL3 authors?
No, they weren't.

Linus is in a discussion with several people about the GPLv3. Linus brings up how the GPLv3 limits the "right of choice" of others. Then, he says: "And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron." And then you argue that that line is NOT directed at GPLv3 authors and supporters?

If you do not see how that is directed at the GPLv3 authors and supporters, then you really don't know how to read.

It may indirectly meant for them, but it's a more general statement. If GPLv3 authors and supporters happen to fall under his statement, oh well. Linus is right anyway. Not his fault if they fall under that.

Besides, by saying he's directing it at them, it's saying you think GPLv3 authors/supports dont think others have the
"right to choice."

Do you believe that?

It is directed at people who are trying to tell him he's wrong for choosing GPLv2 over GPLv3. It's therefore entirely correct and fair. Anyone who is campaigning for 'freedom' by telling people what to do needs to re-examine their methods.

Thom, you were really desperate for this flamewar, weren't you?

So the article claims that he Linus called the authors of the GPL3 "hypocritical morons". Now, did he actually do this?

No, he didn't.

So, what did he do?
In a discussion about the GPL3 somebody brought up one argument and Linus tells him that people using this particular argument are "hypocritical morons".

Now, you seem to have been aware that that is a far cry from what the article alledges, that's why instead of simply posting the beginning of the article as usual, you wrote a teaser on your own, this time stating he didn't actually call him that, but "effectively".

And now you're at it again. You still want to spin what Linus said into an all out condemnation of the authors of the GPL3. Thom, that's pathetic.

Edited 2007-07-15 17:13

Well if you can't tell the difference between a direct personal insult and a bold rethoric statement, it's quite obviously you who missed a couple of english classes. Calling people acting stupid morons (in their face) is a subtly different thing than refering to people acting stupidly as morons.
That said, I like the general idea of destroying all intellectual property claims whatsoever, but in a real world that might not be the most pragmatic way of dealing with things. However, as always it is already to late. Mode blood will be shed over this...

I respectfully disagree. The posting (a) adds useful and relevant information to the InformationWeek article, and (b) avoids injecting particular bias in posting.

I consider that to be well within journalistic standards.

[edited to correct publication name]

Edited 2007-07-16 00:00

"Linus never said such a thing... "

And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then
tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron.

Linus

"To call people who draw the line in a different place than you hypocrites is BS." -- quoted in Linus's reply

"That was *not* what I did.

I don't think it's hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That's a fine choice,
it's just not *mine*.

What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of "freedom", while
you're at the same time trying to argue that I don't have the "freedom" to
make my own choice.

See? THAT is hypocritical.

Linus"

From what I can see this is being blown WAY out of proportion. I don't think Linus was out of line when he said what he did. I understand that some people think that someone in his "position of power" should really consider everything he says on a public mailing list... honestly I don't see why he can't just say what he wants. He is completely in his rights to express his frustration with the GPL3. Linus doesn't just see a license when it comes to OSS licensing, he also considers the attitude that comes with it.

"So I claim that for *me* the right choice is GPLv2 (or something similar).
I think the GPLv3 is overreaching.

There's a very fundamental, and very basic rule that is often a good guideline. It's "Do unto others".

So the reason I *personally* like the GPLv2 is that it does unto others exactly what I wish they would do unto me."

Software rights are not the only thing in question, which is what Linus considers in his argument.

I don't want to bring it up, but I never see this issue when it comes to BSD licensed software, probably because the license is simple and to the point. I was hoping good things for the GPL3, so far it's been a bumpy start. Samba dev's changing over was what I thought to be as the start of it all just smoothing out. Suppose I was wrong.

Let's not take statements out of context and try to start a pointless flame war, OK?

About something else entirely.

Linus replied in his list to someone whining about Tivo. It got misreported as the Attack Upon The FSF from the Great and Powerful Linus in a move of poor journalism. That's pretty much it.

Thom, please include a link to the post with "his words on the lkml" - it would make your argument stronger and let us see the context in which they were said.

The ikml post in question is the second link above.

That pre-supposes that Thom is actually making an argument. I don't interpret it that way - it looks like he posted a link to a newsworthy article. The concept of "newsworthiness" makes no judgement as to the quality of writing, journalism, etc. And considering that the format of OSNews is essentially "meta-journalism" (news based on what other sites are posting as news), this certainly qualifies.

The site is called "OS News," not "OS News - but only the news that we approve of and fully agree with." That's not how journalism works.

That said, the post could do with a little equivocation in the non-quoted portion - to make it more clear that OSNews is reporting on the claim made by IW, not actually making the claim.

That pre-supposes that Thom is actually making an argument. I don't interpret it that way - it looks like he posted a link to a newsworthy article.
Look at his posts, he clearly made an argument (or at least tried to).

And the article isn't newsworthy, but simply a lie.

The site is called "OS News," not "OS News - but only the news that we approve of and fully agree with." That's not how journalism works.
Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I wasn't aware that posting factually wrong, intentionally misleading articles is the same as posting an article you don't fully agree with.

No, but they are misrepresented.

He doesn't mention GPL3 and he doesn't say anything about the authors about GPL3.

This is merely an extreme way of misrepresenting facts. A bit like a certain president claiming not to have had sex with a certain woman.

Before you show how stupid you are, perhaps you should read LKML.

Directly from Linus:
Whining about Tivo's choices is just stupid.

And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then
tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/181

That makes Thom right and you wrong. Linus said that and has a very good point. Saying the gplv3 gives you more freedom yet it restricts usage is completely asinine.

>That makes Thom right and you wrong. Linus said that and has a very good point. Saying the gplv3 gives you more freedom yet it restricts usage is completely asinine.

Yeah!11! It's a real tyranny up north here. I'm not even allowed the freedom to hold slaves or pillage! I can't even yell fire in a crowded place.

(Everyone restricts freedom to a degree to protect the fundamentals, in this case freedoms 0-3)

Edited 2007-07-15 17:22

One of the problems with journalism is that it insists on assigning individuals to groups and associating them with a set of absolutist positions on that basis. The result is everybody accusing everybody else of being hypocrites when it turns out that their actual beliefs are far more nuanced than we have been told.

For example, both of your statements about the GPLv3 are wrong. You say that the GPLv3 "gives you more freedom." Anyone who reads the FSF's rationale documents would realize that this is not the goal of any version of the GPL. Instead, the goal is, roughly speaking, to protect certain freedoms by limiting others.

Then you say it restricts usage, which you can't do with a copyright license. The part of the GPLv3 to which you are referring restricts restrictions on running modified works. It prevents distributors from restricting usage. Is a restriction on a restriction still a restriction? I don't know, but it isn't clearly an affront to freedom.

Those that call the FSF hypocrites on the grounds that they are limiting freedom don't understand that freedom is not a natural result of the human condition. Left to our own devices, we sell ourselves into slavery. Freedom is a paradox. Those that want the world to be free (in any context) are idealists, and idealists are inherently hypocritical.

I believe that the ultimate challenge of humanity is to figure out how peace and freedom can triumph over war and tyranny. It's a hard problem, and we're currently dealing with the aftermath of a twisted, inexplicable, and disastrous attempt to "bring freedom to the world." The solution must be a careful balance between absolute freedom and absolute authority.

I hope that humanity can draft a framework for the preservation of free software, because only then can we realistically proceed toward a world of free people. Software is a perfect place to start, because it is an economy of unlimited supply. If we cannot agree on how to be free in a microcosm of unlimited resources, how are we supposed to live free in a world of scarcity?

The first step is to reject absolutism and accept hypocrisy. Because we are all hypocrites, and freedom is an elusive shade of gray.

Edited 2007-07-15 19:09

The quote is totally taken out of context. If you spend a few minutes reading the thread, you'll see that immediately.

Or just read a later posting in the same thread. It not only puts things in perspective, it's also the best interpretation of the difference between v2 and v3 that I've ever seen

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223

I don't think that level of language is needed on OSNews

Thom didn't post the article, he posted an excerpt from it and a link to it. InformationWeek is the actual source, a fact which is mentioned quite prominently in Thom's post.

I really wish people would stop the whole "OSNews shouldn't have posted a link to such-and-such article because I personally find it objectionable" schtick, it's getting old. Posting a link to an article does not equate with endorsement of its content.

Yes, he did - not word for word, but he did (why not, it's his personal opinion). To him it's clear that Linux will stay under GPL 2. Well, that may be a bad sign for GPL 3 ...

Groklaw also has an article about this misquotation.

I think that article should be linked with this too

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070713192403106

The OSNews article about his attack on Gnome garnered around 600 comments or something. It'd be pretty hard to beat that.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/12956/Torvalds-Use-KDE

edit: link, and it was Gnome- not KDE[i]

[i]Edited 2007-07-15 16:31

I agree with your perspective that the author is biased, but I think you have the favored sides flipped. A "purist" is usually looked down upon, in my parlance, whereas a business-minded person is more practical and productive.

Whatever... I personally like Linus' point of view better because it seems more intellectually honest and it's ultimately what will get Linux farther as an engineering system. TiVO could just as easily move to WinCE and get all the benefits of Linux if the cost of dealing with the GPLv3 is too high. WinCE is an shared-source OS for those people who choose to license it, so it's not like they'll lose much from an engineering perspective... maybe a buck or so per unit for price, but that could be less than the cost of litigating with these jackasses.

"I agree with your perspective that the author is biased, but I think you have the favored sides flipped. A "purist" is usually looked down upon, in my parlance, whereas a business-minded person is more practical and productive.

Whatever... I personally like Linus' point of view better because it seems more intellectually honest and it's ultimately what will get Linux farther as an engineering system. TiVO could just as easily move to WinCE and get all the benefits of Linux if the cost of dealing with the GPLv3 is too high. WinCE is an shared-source OS for those people who choose to license it, so it's not like they'll lose much from an engineering perspective... maybe a buck or so per unit for price, but that could be less than the cost of litigating with these jackasses."

Its always nice to see Vista Advocates pop by in in GPL3 thread to promote Linus' argument against GNU adoption.

I'm pretty certain, that its Microsoft not FSF threatening companies using Linux. Which the FSF unlike Linus is actually addressing.

I'd love you to show me these *costs*

Sadly, the voice of reason/moderation doesn't seem to carry much weight around here.

"""
Sadly, the voice of reason/moderation doesn't seem to carry much weight around here.
"""

Well, one must count one's blessings where one can. My second comment in this thread, which could have turned into a nasty flamewar, has gotten some very reasonable responses. And for that I thank the responders...

except

maybe

cyclops. ;-)

@sbergman27 WOW thank you for mentioning me personally. I don't want to this, because I've done it to death.

I find what you said offensive. I respect the work of the FSF, both for their political contribution and their code, and even Vista users should thank then for offering a tiny bit of competition.

It might become as a bit of a shock to you but Linus has wrote, and been involved in very little userland, and the majority of what makes up GNU is userland. We are seeing GNU/Solaris;GNU/*BSD and GNU/Linux.

I am increasingly loosing respect for Linus, and have *zero* respect for Linus the "Politician", I actually find it appalling that he spends his time attacking the FSF and the Gnome project, when GNU has real problems ignoring the little things like adoption; patents; that company with 90%+ Market share; DRM. He spends his time attacking a License he is not going to use, and a Desktop he Doesn't, Why would I care when he opens his Mouth?

My concern is and I think it shows strongest with his objections to users, like myself who want the four freedoms on out GNU devices. It shows his interest in Linux adoption...in embedded devices, but not Desktop Adoption of an OS thats attractive *because* of those four freedoms.

I use the word GNU for what I use. Its actually a shame, because the two applications that have made the Desktop OS a use a leading OS OpenOffice and Firefox, neither by the FSF.

The OS I use represents those "four freedoms", because thats how I think of GNU, not something unchangeable on a mobile phone protected by Microsoft Patents.

BTW those are paragraphs.

uh oh, its you again. I spent hours reading you earlier today.

Don't get me wrong, you've some really good points but your CONSTANT ranting about everyone and everything diffuses your point.

"""
@sbergman27 WOW thank you for mentioning me personally.
"""

I sincerely hope that you took it as a good natured joke. I do like to spread my posts out vertically, a bit. But not *that* much. ( OK. Maybe a little, sometimes. ;-) ) Are they formatting differently for you than what I see, I wonder? You are the only one who ever complains, anyway.

Could you bit a little more specific about what I said that was offensive to you? My joke was about our respective opinions on proper paragraph length, and not about GNU. And I apologize if it came off that way.

As to the paragraphs... as with most of what we discuss, the truth is probably somewhere in between. ;-)

Edited 2007-07-15 22:22

I am increasingly loosing respect for Linus, and have *zero* respect for Linus the "Politician"

I'm not sure that is a wise position for an FSF supporter to take. Linus was (and is) a key player in bringing free software up to the level of credibility that it enjoys today. Without him, free software might still be languishing in its own niche community rather than standing among the big players at the forefront of IT.

Not that I would assert that Linus is solely responsible for the success of the free software movement; only that the Linux kernel is its keystone.

I actually find it appalling that he spends his time attacking the FSF and the Gnome project, when GNU has real problems ignoring the little things like adoption; patents; that company with 90%+ Market share; DRM. He spends his time attacking a License he is not going to use, and a Desktop he Doesn't, Why would I care when he opens his Mouth?

I don't follow lkml very closely although I do tend to follow FOSS news as much as possible. In any case, I don't recall seeing Linus ever take the offensive against the FSF or the GPL3. It seems to me like he usually only offers his opinion when it is solicited or in his own defense when he is attacked for not preferring the GPL3 for the kernel.

Heh, and it looks like both of our points have been substantiated

What's wrong with a flamewar ? There are other sites which are more up to date with IT news, like Techweb, Earthweb or IDG.net. OS News is unique because one can flame there.

"where as by that time the licence will be modified to allow yout o invade other developers in an attempt to convert them and if that fais destroy there civilization..."

I think I've played that Age of Empires mod.

"never finished that chapter in the history book"

Seeing that you regard the Free Software movement as some kind of religion, perhaps it was a fairytale you were reading, not a history book. Either way, more reading is probably required on your part.

Corporations are users as well.

Your argument is simplistic to the point of being useless. If all hardware vendors made it impossible to run software on their hardware, then the whole debate would be over because no one would be able to run GPLv3 software on any hardware. The only way to prevent that happening is to also make some truly open hardware.

As long as the majority of software users are using Windows, then hardware vendors and Microsoft have power, and no amount of creative license writing can change that.

"""sounds more like he suddenly wants a bsd licensed kernel..

im afraid torvalds is a fool, who doesent give a damn about freedom to the recievers of the software..
"""

I hate to get involved in this but...

No. As you point out, he did pick, and continues to like GPLv2. If he did not care about freedoms he would not have used that license, and would not be defending it today.

Also, he has been very explicit about why he would not use BSD.

And, BTW, he tends to use the word "fairness" rather than freedom. Honestly, I don't really blame him.

I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD.

With a finished HURD, they would not have to *care* about people prepending "GNU/" to the name of their OSes.

They would not have to waste *everyone's* time and energy, including their own, trying to tell the copyright holders of *other projects* how they should license their own code.

In other words, they could mind their own business and still have GNU OS. And people could choose whether to use it... or not.

It would MAKE SO MUCH SENSE all around.

Why are they not doing that? HURD predates Linux by a year, IIRC. If they had put half the effort into finishing GNU OS as they do trying to butt into other people's business, this whole issue would be quite moot, today.

Edited 2007-07-15 18:12

sbergman27 wrote:
-"I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD."

lack of resources and lack of interest from external developers comes to mind. which is the problem for just about every alternative os out there.

sbergman27 wrote:
-If they had put half the effort into finishing GNU OS as they do trying to butt into other people's business, this whole issue would be quite moot, today.

again, their resources aren't infinite, compared to microsoft, apple or even many commercial software vendors their resources are abysmal.

practically the entire oss world relies on their gnu toolchain, which IS their flagship. I'd much rather have they continue their focus there, improving on their great development tools which supports a LARGE range of hardware targets rather than putting those efforts in finishing off the HURD.

>I do not understand why FSF does not complete its GNU OS by finishing up the HURD.

It's quite simple: Because it isn't the ultimate goal of the FSF to build their own OS (== 100% FSF copyrighted). The goal is to have a complete free OS. Therefore the FSF develops everything what is missed but doesn't reinvent the wheel by writing a new kernel when we already have one, writing a new X system when we already have one, etc..
The FSF is completely fine with Linux, x,org,.. even if they use another license than GPLv3. The FSF would even have been fine with FreeBSD if it would have been exist at the beginning of GNU.

EDIT: fixing typo

Edited 2007-07-15 18:37

"""
Because it isn't the ultimate goal of the FSF to build their own OS (== 100% FSF copyrighted).
"""

I would disagree on this point. In my view, the FSF's conflicts with the Linux kernel developers is not really about GPLv2 vs GPLv3. That is just a symptom.

In my view, the conflict really comes down to who controls the copyright.

While writing my post above, (which should be taken as a constructive suggestion to the FSF and not as an attack, BTW), I briefly considered their adopting the excellent Solaris kernel, assuming it goes GPLv3. It would have the right license for them. And it would certainly be convenient. But Sun owning a complete copyright on it would never be acceptible to them.

IMO, the FSF, rightly or wrongly, really *does* want that level of control. If it were not GPLvX vs GPLvX+1, something else would come up that would trouble them about any kernel which they do not control the copyrights to.

Now, *from my perspective*, I agree that it *would* be a waste of resources.

But I am trying to look at it from the perspective of the FSF finally getting what it really wants, and has been working toward all these years.

And I really do not see anything short of having their own kernel getting that for them, regardless of the resources it would require.

Edited 2007-07-15 19:06

>I would disagree on this point. In my view, the FSF's conflicts with the Linux kernel developers is not really about GPLv2 vs GPLv3. That is just a symptom.

In my view, the conflict really comes down to who controls the copyright.

I don't challenge your view. But your view isn't necessarily the view of the FSF. There are a lot of interviews out their where RMS said exactly what i have written. He also said that they are fine with Linux and because we have a great kernel the Hurd has a low priority in the FSF and they focus on things which are really needed (that was e.g. free flash (Gnash) and free Java (GNU Classpath)).

That doesn't mean that the FSF has the same opinion in every case like the Kernel Hackers. The FSF even hasn't the same opionion like all maintainer/developer of GNU packages. But that's not the point. The point is that the technical goal of the FSF is to have a free OS and they are using what ever exist and lead us toward this goal.
RMS also mentioned in some GPLv3 talks that there is no problem if Linux will keep GPLv2. Sure, he would prefer GPLv3 but he has no problem with a decision to stay with GPLv2.

Edited 2007-07-15 19:12

@sbergman27

I would disagree on this point. In my view, the FSF's conflicts with the Linux kernel developers is not really about GPLv2 vs GPLv3. That is just a symptom.

I'm a little disturbed by the fact that you *separate* the two, when kernel developers *have* shown an interest in GPL3.

I actually *love* the control argument, and have to ask the basic question. What are you on about? As Linus *repeated points out the FSF have wrote little to nothing in the kernel, and nothing in the Solaris kernel. Not even Linus' is losing sleep over this, he is over losing Developers to Solaris for its more attractive lisensing which is what I think this is about. But seriously thats just silly.