3 ms·

> The only thing Linus seems to be disingenuous about is his claim of support for the GPLv2. I don't believe he's being disingenuous. What's happening is that

> The only thing Linus seems to be disingenuous about is his claim of support for the GPLv2. I don't believe he's being disingenuous. What's happening is that Linus, and Greg, see the GPL as a tool, a lever if you will, to multiply the amount of code contributed to Linux and other open systems. From that engineering POV they see it as an important contributor to the success of Linux. As a consequence of that, they are in no hurry to change it as it meets their need. What they clearly don't agree with is the political motivations that drove the creation of the license in the first place. Nor do they appear to be overly concerned, on either a moral or legal level, about its violation. My guess is that, while it continues to help in their endeavour, they will continue to support it. If it were to get in the way, they would feel forced to re-think it. What I read in the thread is the view that they are concerned that a significant increase in legal actions could become a problem for them. I have some sympathy for both sides. I'd probably err on the side of Linus and Greg as my pragmatism generally outweighs my activism.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
So it's now GPL-but-not-really. I.e. corporations get all the benefit of free contributions, but don't feel any need to contribute in return unless they happen to feel like doing so. And "Let's not scare the corporations" is the new "enforcement." Sweet deal for them.
- lucozade 10y ago
  > So it's now GPL-but-not-really. No, it's GPL. It's a perfectly reasonable, and not uncommon, strategy to use legal instruments for protective or signalling reasons but not as an offensive weapon. Patents are a similar example. They're often held defensively and for cultural signalling. When they're pursued aggressively, it's generally considered trolling. And yeah, it's a sweet deal. TBH I think that's the point - a lot of people get a sweet deal, including corporations. Where the argument seems to lie is how much should we care about free loaders if everyone's getting some candy.
  - toyg 10y ago
    > if everyone's getting some candy. The point is that people going to the SFC for help are clearly "not getting some candy", otherwise they wouldn't be bitching. A "non-enforcement" deal is much, much sweeter for corporations and sociopaths than it is for people doing the actual work.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

So it's now GPL-but-not-really. I.e. corporations get all the benefit of free contributions, but don't feel any need to contribute in return unless they happen to feel like doing so. And "Let's not scare the corporations" is the new "enforcement." Sweet deal for them.

lucozade 10y ago
> So it's now GPL-but-not-really. No, it's GPL. It's a perfectly reasonable, and not uncommon, strategy to use legal instruments for protective or signalling reasons but not as an offensive weapon. Patents are a similar example. They're often held defensively and for cultural signalling. When they're pursued aggressively, it's generally considered trolling. And yeah, it's a sweet deal. TBH I think that's the point - a lot of people get a sweet deal, including corporations. Where the argument seems to lie is how much should we care about free loaders if everyone's getting some candy.
- toyg 10y ago
  > if everyone's getting some candy. The point is that people going to the SFC for help are clearly "not getting some candy", otherwise they wouldn't be bitching. A "non-enforcement" deal is much, much sweeter for corporations and sociopaths than it is for people doing the actual work.