Great news, but they really should have picked GPLv3+ or GPLv2+.
The Linux kernel is also GPLv2 (not +); I completely agree with the '+' thing as that leaves the FSF in control of the license (effectively).
Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong."
There are many reasons why one might wish that Linux was GPLv3: for instance, one might think that the "anti-Tivoisation" provisions are important. Linus obviously doesn't share this point of view; that doesn't make it an invalid point of view to have.
> And please, when you join that fight, use your _own_ copyrights. Not somebody elses. I absolutely hate how the FSF has tried to use my code as a weapon, just because I decided that their license was good.
and about having a poll deciding the matter
> Here's a poll for you: > - go write your own kernel > - poll which one is more popular
I very often dislike Linus style of discussion, but that one was pretty clear and straightforward.
Actually, I don't think it's a bullshit argument in cases where the fundamentals are here: Somebody calls a vote on the license of code that was largely written by the the other person. That other person is totally entitled to say "Hey, go, vote on the license of your piece of code and not on mine."
And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus.
Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed.
You can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't disagree with Linus.
Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey.
> Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed.
You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.
Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey.
You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.
As they, "actions speak louder than words" -- and your words seem very dim compared to the action of thousands of contributors.
Then it's not going to happen, and our opinions are equally valid.
> it's logical to assume that they agree with both the licensing and direction
No, it's not. It's logical to assume they accept them. There are many reasons they might do so. One is certainly because they agree with them, another is that, weighing the benefits of working within the existing framework, they conclude it outweighs their disagreement with the licensing and direction.
Some of the benefits include, by the way, continued salary. Most kernel contributors are paid for their work by employers.
I work within frameworks I disagree with all the time. We all do. Sometimes because I'm paid for it. Sometimes because I feel I can do more good within that framework than fighting it. Sometimes it's because I'm bound to by law or social contract.
That I don't shoot anyone that stands in the way of my ideals is not the same as saying I agree with theirs.
If I had some motivation to do so (something I thought needed fixed, a new driver I wanted, or an employer who paid me), I would have no issue contributing to the Linux kernel. Yet I disagree with the decision to make it GPLv2 only.
Anyone who can't hold two opposed ideas in their mind at the same time is surely too stupid to be trusted to work on a kernel, no?
That's why we have the right to fork. While we can't change GPLv2 kernel code, there is nothing stopping anybody from including GPLv3 code in the kernel so long as it doesn't directly link against GPLv2 code in a way when the fork is distributed.
If linus decided tomorrow to make new software under a license that only allowed white people to use it, I would consider it wrong and a racist license. I reject your claim that the author has the right to establish such license as "right".
More like: "Someone other respected person believes otherwise, and here is their justification. This other position may be a better one, for the reasons they give."
Every time I look at Android phone or TV or a router I regret that BSD/MIT/Apache is so popular. Those devices run tivoized proprietary builds of what consists mostly of free software, but builds are shitty or just restricted (want a proper firewall? never mind it's there go buy next-tier device). And users can't do anything about that.
Users and GPLv3 deserve more love. They're already screwed by everyone and their pet code monkeys.
As an example, John Carmack (formerly of ID Software) recently posted this on twitter:
GPL never did really do anything for game code, and I do
wonder whether it was a fundamental cultural
incompatibility.
When I was merely a user of free software, I too believed as others did, that a more restrictive (or "stronger" if your prefer) copy-left license was better. However, the more years I've spent in the software industry, the more my opinion has varied.
I think it ultimately comes down to who the primary "users" of your code are. If it's an application, it's probably ok to use more restrictive licensing. If it's a library, or code that's in any way intended to be reused by others more generally, the licensing should have very few restrictions if you want to encourage wide usage and to discourage others from duplicating the work.
>The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.
>This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us.
>However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.
Public Domain or BSD-style licenses are really the best option for encouraging wide usage and discouraging code duplication.
Actual users want products that just work.
You're twisting "users" to mean "programmers that have the time and interest in spending it on hacking their gadgets."
There is a huge difference here: the vast majority of people don't mess with their routers (heck - I'm a programmer, and I code at home and at work, and I don't mess with my router). So the people you're talking about are a very, very small group.
I'm not saying that this is a group of zero size. All I mean is: compare the total number of people that are into their wrt54g routers with the total number of routers out there. Users aren't idiots; they just have other things they'd rather be doing than messing with their wireless routers.
You imply that they're paying too much for their routers, given the features they have. Who are you to say what a feature (of a product you don't have to support) is worth to another person? If you think you can do better, no one is stopping you from making and distributing routers that you'd like, either for sale or for gratis.
Nope, I meant users. Who want products to work.
I'm not willing to hack my phone myself, in fact I don't have resources to do that. But I'm willing to pay someone to do that. Yet, I can't, because the necessary extent of reverse engineering would cost me a fortune. So, I learned to live with what I have.
> the vast majority of people don't mess with their routers
Does that prove anything? See, I don't mess with my phone and my TV, too. Does that mean I'm really satisfied with those? Nope, I just tolerate them.
Imagine there's a patch that automagically improves your network experience by configuring QoS features your router already has (but has no UI for them). Would you install it? If you'd have to crack your router open, solder a serial port, run a TFTP server and risk bricking the device - you probably wouldn't. If you'd have just download a file and click a button or two and have a new feature (not complete router reflash to a new firmware) - I guess you quite likely would consider so.
> Who are you to say what a feature (of a product you don't have to support) is worth to another person?
Uh. Someone, who heard some those other persons complaining? I must admit, this is a subjective opinion, I do not have proper statistics that can make things objective.
However, you're right, routers were a bad example. Average user rarely has an opinion on those just because they don't really consciously interact with them. "Smart" TVs and phones are much more common source of complaints. And the point was not about pricing. It was about inability to control what you have.
And there's the sound of someone slamming down the portcullis between "us" and "them". Programmers and non-programmers. Creators and consumers.
>Every time I look at Android phone or TV or a router I regret that BSD/MIT/Apache is so popular
Android is built on the linux kernel, which is GPL. You are proving yourself wrong with that example.
> And users can't do anything about that.
Of course they can. If they do not want that, they can choose not to purchase it. It isn't rocket science. You are simply upset because actual users are proving you wrong, and showing that they don't give a shit about things being GPL. Your "but think of the users" histrionics are so transparently fake it is insulting everyone's intelligence to continue repeating it.
Proprietary software would still exist without free software. People who write software can do whatever they like with it, and it is incredibly self-absorbed and arrogant to suggest that giving away something they made is a problem because it violates your arbitrary belief system.
Did someone offer you software, with no cost attached, and promises that you can modify and share it, and then it was not enough? You wanted to also have the right to threaten your users with lawsuits if they in turn did the same thing as you just did to the program?