3 ms·
Linus has publicly said that he is very happy with having chosen GPLv2, he just doesn't like GPLv3 and doesn't like dealing with it through lawyers. Copying my
by mordocai 10y ago
Linus has publicly said that he is very happy with having chosen GPLv2, he just doesn't like GPLv3 and doesn't like dealing with it through lawyers.
Copying my comment from reddit when this was discussed last week:
> As the thread linked shows though, Linus cares about the GPL for what it gains him not what it gains the user. The spirit of the FSF and the GPL is for the user, not the dev.
>He only cares about actions that lead to code getting back into the upstream kernel, whereas others(and the FSF) care primarily about people being able to view and modify the code they use and that is running on their devices.
>I'd argue he likes the GPL for what it gains him but isn't really a GPL/FSF advocate.
>Edit: It is important to note that this is one of the core reasons Greg/Linus and the FSF/SFC disagree I think. Karen from the SFC had an IMO excellent response in that chain that matches my thoughts if you are curious.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4zp56l/gpl_defense_issues/d6xyb7u https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4zp56l/gpl_defense_i...
- toyg 10y agoLinus would like to have his cake and eat it too. On almost every debate on licensing (binary blobs etc), he's consistently taken a "liberal" approach that would better suit a BSD/MIT license rather than the GPL. Through the years, he basically enjoyed the benefits of the "forceful mindshare" the GPL imposed on other developers, all the while pissing on everything the GPL promoted: "hey, you're forced to show us what you developed, but really I'm not going to force you wink wink". As much as I understand the world is not black & white, overall it's a very hypocritical stance.