Re: GPL V3 and Linux

[Chase Venters <chase.venters@clientec.com>]

On Friday 20 January 2006 23:56, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on
> > companies? Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that
> > all you can do is spin it into silly conspiracies?
>
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
> nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
> This is not exactly the way these words are meant to be used.

Perhaps you are looking for BSD? This is Linux, and the GPL, and we use 
something called 'copyleft' that is designed to ensure everyone has freedom 
and no one can take it away.

> > Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant
> > things? Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also
> > Stallman's license?
>
> Surely significant things/projects do have their origin there. This is
> yet another sad consequence. I hope we can someday get rid of all this
> 'GNU is ...' crap and build a better world that understands 'freedom'
> for what it really is, not just
> I'll-sue-you-should-you-use-my-code-in-your-proprietary-product stinky
> sort of thing.

Heh... I suspect you won't be spending much time on or around LKML if that's 
your attitude. There are a fair number of kernel developers that believe 
strongly enough in all this stuff that they would make legal threats / sue 
(rightfully so) over someone writing proprietary drivers.

> > I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for
> > too long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try
> > having some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
>
> He's not a god, nor a prophet, just a human, face it.

Indeed, but at least he's provided the world with something of value.

> > As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the
> > "company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free
> > software' stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for
> > themselves and their users -- not for companies. It just happens that
> > Stallman's license allows business and industry to harmonize.
>
> Not even close. Too much of RMS's bloody 'lectures/prophecies/you-name-it'
> can do this to a person. So please be careful.

What exactly were you saying "not even close" to? That free software is 
started and written by most as a hobby? That GPL is business friendly? 
Because if you deny it, you're simply WRONG.

I have an important question for you. If you don't like the license / 
philosophy / players behind this free software / open source thing, what the 
fuck are you doing in LKML? It's really obnoxious to come waltzing into a 
community and start telling people "Someone should
probably put an end to these miserable efforts."

In truth, I have some co-workers that feel like you do about copyleft and the 
GPL - moaning, groaning and bitching about it. The irony is that they would 
be in NO WAY affected by the GPL (it's a *license to distribute*, not a 
*contract for use*) unless they decided to make copies. More specifically, 
the reason they're always bitching is because they _very specifically_ want 
to TAKE and not GIVE BACK.

If you recall, Eric Raymond once said we don't need the GPL anymore. If I 
recall correctly, that was the last time Eric Raymond made the headlines. He 
rode out on a wave of vast disagreement from the community, and last I 
checked, no one has gone from the GPL back to public domain.