7 ms·

Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for (2014)

120 points by naetius 6y ago

bombcar 6y ago
"or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 without that. And we're seeing that the GPLv3 didn't "solve" the problems it was meant to solve and now we have multiplications of "open source" licenses designed to protect business models.
- chomp 6y ago
  Are you referring to AGPL? Or RSAL/SSPL?
  - bombcar 6y ago
    The second - in theory GPLv3 "solves" the Tivoization problem but the "cloud service" problem now exists - and honestly I think BOTH the GPLv3 and SSPL and such licenses are bandaids on an underlying problem - GPLv3 trying to solve a hardware licensing issue, and SSPL trying to solve a business model problem. The other side-effect of all this license proliferation is that companies clearly "know" where they stand with them - and are scared to move to new ones, especially if they have "patent side effects" that the lawyers don't want to investigate or stick their neck out on. Apple stopped with the GPLv2 and hasn't moved forward in anything GPLv3; sure you can argue they never contributed much but the license should be about source code freedom - and it has morphed to be so much more.
    - simion314 6y ago
      >but the license should be about source code freedom This is not true, GPL is about "user freedom", repeat it 3 times, "USER" freedom. This is why it gates hate from some developers or entrepreneurs here, it removes the freedom of the developer to abuse the user or in recent cases companies to profit from community work and not give anything back or even harming the original project with FUD or unfair competition.
      - bombcar 6y ago
        The developer is a user; in fact the whole point of the GPLv2 is that it should be the case that users CAN be developers. GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software; it's analogous to the "software cannot be used for evil" or "this software cannot be used in tanks" clauses on other licenses. And as Linus is arguing, it's perhaps a perfectly FINE license, but it is NOT the GPLv2 and it has different aims and desires: and he gives examples where if the kernel had the "and any other version" the GPLv3 could be used to do exactly what the GPLv2 is supposed to prevent - someone taking the code and modifying it and distributing it in a way so that he can't use the modifications.
        dTal 6y ago
        >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software No it doesn't. You can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software, provided you don't distribute it. It's disingenuous to use the word "developer" to equate "person who edits their own software" with "person who distributes software to others". Or if you disagree, can you articulate exactly what USER freedom you think is being infringed? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."
        marcodiego 6y ago
        >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software GPLv3 puts requirements on what a DEVELOPER can do with the code
        simion314 6y ago
        > The developer is a user then he should not put restrictions on other users then himself. The point is that all users should have the freedoms not only the developers, the only limitation is that you can't abuse users. A good example would be a quote I heard in a play of Uncle Tom's cabin (this was a translated and adapted so it might not be present exactly like this in the book). So in the play a french and some americans debate slavery and the salve owner says something like "America is the land of the free because we are free to own slaves" , like that slaver some companies and developers want to be more free to abuse others (put DRM to lock people, create proprietary formats, spy on users, nag them etc). IMO we all are free to chose the license for our work, and if anyone wants to make his work BSD or proprietary it is his rights, but they should not complain when someone chose GPL because he decided that he is concerned about user abuse.
    - m463 6y ago
      Affero GPL is for cloud stuff. > the license should be about source code freedom no, it is about USER freedom. You can USE gpl software for any purpose whatsoever. Do anything you like with it. modify it, run it, it is yours. It's just that when you redistribute it, you have to pass on that freedom. I don't know why people in business freak out about this. They have money. Pay people to write software. If they want to redistribute software, just get MIT stuff, fork and close it, make modifications that restrict the use/redistribution, then sell it.
- mrob 6y ago
  The GPLv3 worked exactly as intended. The GPLv3 was primarily meant to solve Tivoization, and GPLv3ed works cannot be legally Tivoized. Business models are outside the scope of Free Software.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  > "or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 without that. And it introduces a gigantic single point of failure with the FSF. If someone legally takes over the FSF, and publishes GPL 4 which is a BSD style license, then copyleft goes away for a lot of GPL software.
  - bombcar 6y ago
    The FSF being taken over in that way is actually quite likely, given long enough time frames. It'll be interesting to see.
  - progval 6y ago
    There is even a precedent of the FSF doing this, without a takeover. The FSF published a new version (1.3) of the GFDL license specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its text (that was licensed as "GFDL version X or above") to a CreativeCommons license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Cre...
  - st_goliath 6y ago
    While this is a scary, yet also somewhat possible scenario out there, the GPL license text itself goes to great extents to explain (in classic RMS speech style) the ideals of Free Software and the whole point of the license. It also says, that the FSF may publish modified versions of the license in the future which are "similar in spirit" to this one and alludes to the fact that the author of the software may have given you the "any later choice". To the slight dismay of some in my immediate family, I chose to study CS instead of law, so IANAL, but in the scenario you describe, I would try to argue into the direction that the hypothetical GPLv4 without copyleft clause is very much not "similar in spirit" to the intent outlined in the older versions in great detail, and hence should not apply.
    - bombcar 6y ago
      The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it. I'm frankly surprised that ANY lawyers signed off on the GPLv2 (as in, picking it for a company sponsored project) as the "any later version" and "similar in spirit" are quite open to interpretation. And all we'd need to see in GPLv5 or v6 is some line like "nothing in this license shall be taken as being incompatible with the BSD/CDDL" to open a huge can of worms. Honestly, if you want to do "or later" I'd instead just assign your code to the FSF to do with it what they will.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 6y ago
  To be fair, that text does not actually appear in the license; it appears in the suggested instructions for using the license (which you are free to ignore when licensing your project). In practice, though, most projects tend to use those suggestions as-is. This distinction is actually important, because the GPL forbids adding more conditions on top of the license while still being GPL-compatible. The FSF does agree[0] with you that code licensed "GPLv2-only" cannot be included in a GPLv3 project. [0] See table at http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  Honestly, the only way the GPLv3 could have succeeded was if everyone had been forced to use it. In order to succeed, it would have to literally become law. People are always free to reinvent the entire free software ecosystem. They are also free to choose different licenses. I knew it was over when LLVM compilers started replacing GCC in a lot of systems.
SeanLuke 6y ago
I am not familiar with the Tivoization issue, but v3 solves one showstopper problem with v2: v2 has no real patent release. To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects. Linux is chock full of potential patent release deathtraps: that it is still using v2 is kinda scary.
- adamrezich 6y ago
  I wasn't familiar with "Tivoization" either but I found that there's a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
  - warmwaffles 6y ago
    I just looked up the history of it. Interesting characterization.
  - bombcar 6y ago
    The "medical devices" loophole in GPLv3 makes the whole thing kinda insane http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq Look at that table!
    - MauranKilom 6y ago
      I don't understand how this table relates to medical devices? Could you explain?
      - bombcar 6y ago
        The table is a second thing - Section 6 is the medical devices loophole; I was just amazed by seeing that (unrelated) table. Certainly simple! /s
  - m463 6y ago
    This is basically why apple stopped shipping GPL software when GPL3 came along. Apple takes away the ability to run the software, then sells it back to you.
st_goliath 6y ago
It appears to me that the complaints in the video seem to go more towards the problems of license compatibility (or lack of backwards compatibility) between GPLv2 vs GPLv3 creating tons of problems with outside contributions to the kernel if the typical "or later" clause was used. Some of the other commenters here seem to stress the Tivoization clause, but it appears to me that that is not the real issue. Linus even says so, at one point when the guy asking the questions repeatedly tries to stress that point.
antattack 6y ago
Also Linus: GPL V3 is a fine license. Overall Linus Torvalds did not like how V3 was forced onto 'unsuspecting' GPL v2 users due to the 'or later' license assignment.
- hutrdvnj 6y ago
  Yeah, but this quote is out of context. With context it makes much more sense.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  The number of persons who earnestly say that it is a good idea to license one's work under or later-licenses is quite boggling. It is putting one's work into the hands of license that does not yet exist, it is irrevocable and once the F.S.F. brings a new version and one does not like provisions thereof, one cannot go back.
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    While I can see why some wouldn't want to use an "or later" license, I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be. While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code. As it is already under the current version of the license, if you do not like the new version, you can simply stop using it for future additions. If I license something under "GPLv2 or later", and the FSF releases GPLv3 that is the SSPL, I can simply keep using my existing code under GPLv2. If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0, then I can once again keep using my code under GPLv2. In either of these cases, I don't have use the new version of the license on new versions of the software. While the existing software is always "GPLv2 or later", later additions can be "GPLv2 only". An "or later" license allows for making my license compatible with future versions of the GPL. Personally, I see this as a good thing.
    - dosshell 6y ago
      You can also dual license your work. If a new license version appears you can read it through and then decide if you want to distribute your work with that license _too_.
systemvoltage 6y ago
Top comment on YT: > I love Linus so much. He has opinions and doesn't hold back with them. Yep, this is the steve jobs era people that were straightforward. Linus can be a lot better with his initial reaction "It's horrible" but you can see through the outer shell that he is a really reasonable person and doesn't come across as this evil lord archetype people push on him. His knee-jerk reactions are so outlandish that after a while you just dismiss them as comedy. Our society is eradicating people with strong opinions. It's is a huge loss.
- paulmd 6y ago
  I wouldn't characterize a tendency for hyperbolic excess to be a good thing even if it's just rhetorical. You can see in any thread mentioning his opinions that nobody really digs for the deeper meaning, they just take him at face value. His comments on AVX-512 are a great example. He later toned them down after his ridiculous excess was challenged, just like you say. But nobody ever brings that up when the topic is discussed, just "HAY GUYS DID U KNOW LINUS SAID AVX-512 IS JUST BENCHMARKETEERING AND NEEDS TO DIE A PAINFUL DEATH!?!?". And now apparently it's such a worthless waste of silicon that AMD is implementing it on Zen4 too... cause Lisa Su loves spending a bunch of silicon on a "few meaningless benchmark wins" too apparently. It's like the old adage, "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on". Well, the ridiculous hyperbole gets halfway around the world before the correction gets its pants on too. Nobody ever hears his retractions, just the initial hyperbole. First impressions matter.
  - twodave 6y ago
    How different is this from people spouting off their political party lines without really understanding the platform? It's human nature. We should not be required to let morons doing moronic things dissuade us from our natural reactions and feelings. I personally enjoy the way Linus tends to lead with his emotional reaction and then explain the layers behind it. I get the impression he often backtracks from his initial position because he's just giving the topic more thought, which is a mature response. The fact that he's a well-known figure doesn't excuse him from the privilege of being a human who learns.
marcodiego 6y ago
Deepest differences between GPLv3 and v2 are: * Antitivoization clause: it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required. This guarantees freedom 0 (freedom to use the software) will not be circumvented and discourages vendors from shipping hardware that requires signed software. * Antipatent clause: The license is revoked from an attacker if patents are used to attack users of the software. These clauses maybe desired in some cases. Probably, a sensible direction could be to add flags to the GPLv2 to particularly enable these clauses. Somewhat similar to how it is done with CC licenses which may have BY, SA, or NC flags.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required It's a little bit more nuanced than this. It's okay to require signed code as long as the end user has control over which signing keys to trust (e.g., x86 Secure Boot, but not ARM Secure Boot). In particular, this means you don't have to choose between security and freedom - you can have both.
- st_goliath 6y ago
  Also an IMO important point: if a copyright holder notifies you of a violation, you have an explicit 30 day grace period to "cure" that. The GPLv2 instead terminates your license, requiring a reinstatement by the copyright holders.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    The GPLv2 “death penalty” is most likely unenforceable. The legal argument is that since the GPLv2 is a public offer that one can accept by complying with it's terms, regardless of the original holder's specific permissions, the offer is even extended to past violators, so all violators have to do to re-accept the offer is to simply come into terms with it again, but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated.
    - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
taf2 6y ago
My favorite quote from Linus in this talk: "When somebody else wrote the code, you don't get that choice, right?"
ddtaylor 6y ago
"The FSF is full of crazy bigoted people" (Linus Torvalds 2014)
- Evidlo 6y ago
  10 seconds later: "I overstated that a bit. The FSF has a lot of nice people in it, but some of them are a bit too extreme."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ChrisArchitect 6y ago
this isn't really news -- it's a historical commentary now, his aversion/issues with GPL evolution are well documented from multiple articles/appearances. The whole discussion in here is all in past tense.
temp667 6y ago
Thank goodness the FSF basically failed. Linus - FSF is "filled with crazy bigoted people" Then the guy keeps on going on how "we" can get Linus to stop. Who is this "We" attacking linus?

120 points by naetius 6y ago

"or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 without that. And we're seeing that the GPLv3 didn't "solve" the problems it was meant to solve and now we have multiplications of "open source" licenses designed to protect business models.

chomp 6y ago
Are you referring to AGPL? Or RSAL/SSPL?
- bombcar 6y ago
  The second - in theory GPLv3 "solves" the Tivoization problem but the "cloud service" problem now exists - and honestly I think BOTH the GPLv3 and SSPL and such licenses are bandaids on an underlying problem - GPLv3 trying to solve a hardware licensing issue, and SSPL trying to solve a business model problem. The other side-effect of all this license proliferation is that companies clearly "know" where they stand with them - and are scared to move to new ones, especially if they have "patent side effects" that the lawyers don't want to investigate or stick their neck out on. Apple stopped with the GPLv2 and hasn't moved forward in anything GPLv3; sure you can argue they never contributed much but the license should be about source code freedom - and it has morphed to be so much more.
  - simion314 6y ago
    >but the license should be about source code freedom This is not true, GPL is about "user freedom", repeat it 3 times, "USER" freedom. This is why it gates hate from some developers or entrepreneurs here, it removes the freedom of the developer to abuse the user or in recent cases companies to profit from community work and not give anything back or even harming the original project with FUD or unfair competition.
    - bombcar 6y ago
      The developer is a user; in fact the whole point of the GPLv2 is that it should be the case that users CAN be developers. GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software; it's analogous to the "software cannot be used for evil" or "this software cannot be used in tanks" clauses on other licenses. And as Linus is arguing, it's perhaps a perfectly FINE license, but it is NOT the GPLv2 and it has different aims and desires: and he gives examples where if the kernel had the "and any other version" the GPLv3 could be used to do exactly what the GPLv2 is supposed to prevent - someone taking the code and modifying it and distributing it in a way so that he can't use the modifications.
      - dTal 6y ago
        >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software No it doesn't. You can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software, provided you don't distribute it. It's disingenuous to use the word "developer" to equate "person who edits their own software" with "person who distributes software to others". Or if you disagree, can you articulate exactly what USER freedom you think is being infringed? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."
      - marcodiego 6y ago
        >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software GPLv3 puts requirements on what a DEVELOPER can do with the code
      - simion314 6y ago
        > The developer is a user then he should not put restrictions on other users then himself. The point is that all users should have the freedoms not only the developers, the only limitation is that you can't abuse users. A good example would be a quote I heard in a play of Uncle Tom's cabin (this was a translated and adapted so it might not be present exactly like this in the book). So in the play a french and some americans debate slavery and the salve owner says something like "America is the land of the free because we are free to own slaves" , like that slaver some companies and developers want to be more free to abuse others (put DRM to lock people, create proprietary formats, spy on users, nag them etc). IMO we all are free to chose the license for our work, and if anyone wants to make his work BSD or proprietary it is his rights, but they should not complain when someone chose GPL because he decided that he is concerned about user abuse.
  - m463 6y ago
    Affero GPL is for cloud stuff. > the license should be about source code freedom no, it is about USER freedom. You can USE gpl software for any purpose whatsoever. Do anything you like with it. modify it, run it, it is yours. It's just that when you redistribute it, you have to pass on that freedom. I don't know why people in business freak out about this. They have money. Pay people to write software. If they want to redistribute software, just get MIT stuff, fork and close it, make modifications that restrict the use/redistribution, then sell it.
mrob 6y ago
The GPLv3 worked exactly as intended. The GPLv3 was primarily meant to solve Tivoization, and GPLv3ed works cannot be legally Tivoized. Business models are outside the scope of Free Software.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> "or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 without that. And it introduces a gigantic single point of failure with the FSF. If someone legally takes over the FSF, and publishes GPL 4 which is a BSD style license, then copyleft goes away for a lot of GPL software.
- bombcar 6y ago
  The FSF being taken over in that way is actually quite likely, given long enough time frames. It'll be interesting to see.
- progval 6y ago
  There is even a precedent of the FSF doing this, without a takeover. The FSF published a new version (1.3) of the GFDL license specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its text (that was licensed as "GFDL version X or above") to a CreativeCommons license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Cre...
- st_goliath 6y ago
  While this is a scary, yet also somewhat possible scenario out there, the GPL license text itself goes to great extents to explain (in classic RMS speech style) the ideals of Free Software and the whole point of the license. It also says, that the FSF may publish modified versions of the license in the future which are "similar in spirit" to this one and alludes to the fact that the author of the software may have given you the "any later choice". To the slight dismay of some in my immediate family, I chose to study CS instead of law, so IANAL, but in the scenario you describe, I would try to argue into the direction that the hypothetical GPLv4 without copyleft clause is very much not "similar in spirit" to the intent outlined in the older versions in great detail, and hence should not apply.
  - bombcar 6y ago
    The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it. I'm frankly surprised that ANY lawyers signed off on the GPLv2 (as in, picking it for a company sponsored project) as the "any later version" and "similar in spirit" are quite open to interpretation. And all we'd need to see in GPLv5 or v6 is some line like "nothing in this license shall be taken as being incompatible with the BSD/CDDL" to open a huge can of worms. Honestly, if you want to do "or later" I'd instead just assign your code to the FSF to do with it what they will.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 6y ago
To be fair, that text does not actually appear in the license; it appears in the suggested instructions for using the license (which you are free to ignore when licensing your project). In practice, though, most projects tend to use those suggestions as-is. This distinction is actually important, because the GPL forbids adding more conditions on top of the license while still being GPL-compatible. The FSF does agree[0] with you that code licensed "GPLv2-only" cannot be included in a GPLv3 project. [0] See table at http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
matheusmoreira 6y ago
Honestly, the only way the GPLv3 could have succeeded was if everyone had been forced to use it. In order to succeed, it would have to literally become law. People are always free to reinvent the entire free software ecosystem. They are also free to choose different licenses. I knew it was over when LLVM compilers started replacing GCC in a lot of systems.

SeanLuke 6y ago

I am not familiar with the Tivoization issue, but v3 solves one showstopper problem with v2: v2 has no real patent release. To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects. Linux is chock full of potential patent release deathtraps: that it is still using v2 is kinda scary.

adamrezich 6y ago
I wasn't familiar with "Tivoization" either but I found that there's a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
- warmwaffles 6y ago
  I just looked up the history of it. Interesting characterization.
- bombcar 6y ago
  The "medical devices" loophole in GPLv3 makes the whole thing kinda insane http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq Look at that table!
  - MauranKilom 6y ago
    I don't understand how this table relates to medical devices? Could you explain?
    - bombcar 6y ago
      The table is a second thing - Section 6 is the medical devices loophole; I was just amazed by seeing that (unrelated) table. Certainly simple! /s
- m463 6y ago
  This is basically why apple stopped shipping GPL software when GPL3 came along. Apple takes away the ability to run the software, then sells it back to you.

st_goliath 6y ago

It appears to me that the complaints in the video seem to go more towards the problems of license compatibility (or lack of backwards compatibility) between GPLv2 vs GPLv3 creating tons of problems with outside contributions to the kernel if the typical "or later" clause was used. Some of the other commenters here seem to stress the Tivoization clause, but it appears to me that that is not the real issue. Linus even says so, at one point when the guy asking the questions repeatedly tries to stress that point.

antattack 6y ago

Also Linus: GPL V3 is a fine license. Overall Linus Torvalds did not like how V3 was forced onto 'unsuspecting' GPL v2 users due to the 'or later' license assignment.

hutrdvnj 6y ago
Yeah, but this quote is out of context. With context it makes much more sense.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
The number of persons who earnestly say that it is a good idea to license one's work under or later-licenses is quite boggling. It is putting one's work into the hands of license that does not yet exist, it is irrevocable and once the F.S.F. brings a new version and one does not like provisions thereof, one cannot go back.
- blendergeek 6y ago
  While I can see why some wouldn't want to use an "or later" license, I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be. While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code. As it is already under the current version of the license, if you do not like the new version, you can simply stop using it for future additions. If I license something under "GPLv2 or later", and the FSF releases GPLv3 that is the SSPL, I can simply keep using my existing code under GPLv2. If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0, then I can once again keep using my code under GPLv2. In either of these cases, I don't have use the new version of the license on new versions of the software. While the existing software is always "GPLv2 or later", later additions can be "GPLv2 only". An "or later" license allows for making my license compatible with future versions of the GPL. Personally, I see this as a good thing.
  - dosshell 6y ago
    You can also dual license your work. If a new license version appears you can read it through and then decide if you want to distribute your work with that license _too_.

systemvoltage 6y ago

Top comment on YT: > I love Linus so much. He has opinions and doesn't hold back with them. Yep, this is the steve jobs era people that were straightforward. Linus can be a lot better with his initial reaction "It's horrible" but you can see through the outer shell that he is a really reasonable person and doesn't come across as this evil lord archetype people push on him. His knee-jerk reactions are so outlandish that after a while you just dismiss them as comedy. Our society is eradicating people with strong opinions. It's is a huge loss.

paulmd 6y ago
I wouldn't characterize a tendency for hyperbolic excess to be a good thing even if it's just rhetorical. You can see in any thread mentioning his opinions that nobody really digs for the deeper meaning, they just take him at face value. His comments on AVX-512 are a great example. He later toned them down after his ridiculous excess was challenged, just like you say. But nobody ever brings that up when the topic is discussed, just "HAY GUYS DID U KNOW LINUS SAID AVX-512 IS JUST BENCHMARKETEERING AND NEEDS TO DIE A PAINFUL DEATH!?!?". And now apparently it's such a worthless waste of silicon that AMD is implementing it on Zen4 too... cause Lisa Su loves spending a bunch of silicon on a "few meaningless benchmark wins" too apparently. It's like the old adage, "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on". Well, the ridiculous hyperbole gets halfway around the world before the correction gets its pants on too. Nobody ever hears his retractions, just the initial hyperbole. First impressions matter.
- twodave 6y ago
  How different is this from people spouting off their political party lines without really understanding the platform? It's human nature. We should not be required to let morons doing moronic things dissuade us from our natural reactions and feelings. I personally enjoy the way Linus tends to lead with his emotional reaction and then explain the layers behind it. I get the impression he often backtracks from his initial position because he's just giving the topic more thought, which is a mature response. The fact that he's a well-known figure doesn't excuse him from the privilege of being a human who learns.

marcodiego 6y ago

Deepest differences between GPLv3 and v2 are: * Antitivoization clause: it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required. This guarantees freedom 0 (freedom to use the software) will not be circumvented and discourages vendors from shipping hardware that requires signed software. * Antipatent clause: The license is revoked from an attacker if patents are used to attack users of the software. These clauses maybe desired in some cases. Probably, a sensible direction could be to add flags to the GPLv2 to particularly enable these clauses. Somewhat similar to how it is done with CC licenses which may have BY, SA, or NC flags.

josephcsible 6y ago
> it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required It's a little bit more nuanced than this. It's okay to require signed code as long as the end user has control over which signing keys to trust (e.g., x86 Secure Boot, but not ARM Secure Boot). In particular, this means you don't have to choose between security and freedom - you can have both.
st_goliath 6y ago
Also an IMO important point: if a copyright holder notifies you of a violation, you have an explicit 30 day grace period to "cure" that. The GPLv2 instead terminates your license, requiring a reinstatement by the copyright holders.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  The GPLv2 “death penalty” is most likely unenforceable. The legal argument is that since the GPLv2 is a public offer that one can accept by complying with it's terms, regardless of the original holder's specific permissions, the offer is even extended to past violators, so all violators have to do to re-accept the offer is to simply come into terms with it again, but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated.
  - dec0dedab0de 6y ago

taf2 6y ago

My favorite quote from Linus in this talk: "When somebody else wrote the code, you don't get that choice, right?"

ddtaylor 6y ago

"The FSF is full of crazy bigoted people" (Linus Torvalds 2014)

Evidlo 6y ago
10 seconds later: "I overstated that a bit. The FSF has a lot of nice people in it, but some of them are a bit too extreme."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 6y ago

this isn't really news -- it's a historical commentary now, his aversion/issues with GPL evolution are well documented from multiple articles/appearances. The whole discussion in here is all in past tense.

temp667 6y ago

Thank goodness the FSF basically failed. Linus - FSF is "filled with crazy bigoted people" Then the guy keeps on going on how "we" can get Linus to stop. Who is this "We" attacking linus?