4 ms·

The parent poster expressed a personal opinion. Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong." There are many reas

The parent poster expressed a personal opinion. 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.

bronson 13y ago
The parent poster expressed a blanket statement. Because there's no subject (or, because it's implicit that the subject is "everyone") they are an invitation for discussion.
Xylakant 13y ago
Well, Linus is pretty succinct why the "It's a shame or not" discussion is not a matter of discussion, but that the matter is decided. > 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.
- angersock 13y ago
  Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument, but the GNU Hurd kind of predates Linux, and would be an acceptable candidate to that argument...and has lost.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument 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."
binarycrusader 13y ago
Call me silly, but I believe the primary and original author of a project or other creative work has the right to establish what is "right" or "wrong" for their project unless they otherwise waived that right.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Once a project has become a large collaborative project, I don't believe the original author remains the sole arbiter of what's good for the project. Their opinion should be given some weight, but whatever their opinion is doesn't automatically decide what's right for the project.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    Which is why I said they had the right to "establish". 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.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      > And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus. 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.
      - binarycrusader 13y ago
mintplant 13y ago
> Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong." 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."

bronson 13y ago

The parent poster expressed a blanket statement. Because there's no subject (or, because it's implicit that the subject is "everyone") they are an invitation for discussion.

Xylakant 13y ago

Well, Linus is pretty succinct why the "It's a shame or not" discussion is not a matter of discussion, but that the matter is decided. > 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.

angersock 13y ago
Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument, but the GNU Hurd kind of predates Linux, and would be an acceptable candidate to that argument...and has lost.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > Normally the "Write a kernel and come back when you've won" is a bullshit argument 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."

binarycrusader 13y ago

Call me silly, but I believe the primary and original author of a project or other creative work has the right to establish what is "right" or "wrong" for their project unless they otherwise waived that right.

_delirium 13y ago
Once a project has become a large collaborative project, I don't believe the original author remains the sole arbiter of what's good for the project. Their opinion should be given some weight, but whatever their opinion is doesn't automatically decide what's right for the project.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  Which is why I said they had the right to "establish". 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.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus. 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.
    - binarycrusader 13y ago

mintplant 13y ago

> Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong." 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."