3 ms·

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 a

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
  Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey. That's your problem not mine; history has already established a precedent and you seem deadset to prove otherwise. I don't need to disprove what is already apparent. 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. No, I've established that not only are they willing to work within that framework, but that it's logical to assume that they agree with both the licensing and direction. Otherwise, why would they devote so much time and energy? As they, "actions speak louder than words" -- and your words seem very dim compared to the action of thousands of contributors.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > That's your problem not mine 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?
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      For all practical purposes, by contributing, they (employers or individuals) are agreeing (in whole or in part, through organisation or individually) with the direction and vision that Linus has established enough to contribute. So in the end, all of your convoluted arguments about not being in complete agreement and frameworks is pointless.
      - mortdeus 13y ago
        What's funny about this discussion is the fact that Linus is supreme dictator of kernel.org. Whatever he decides to merge in his personal fork of Linux shouldn't be up for debate just because the Linux community willingly decides to keep pulling his commits into their clones. 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.

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
Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey. That's your problem not mine; history has already established a precedent and you seem deadset to prove otherwise. I don't need to disprove what is already apparent. 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. No, I've established that not only are they willing to work within that framework, but that it's logical to assume that they agree with both the licensing and direction. Otherwise, why would they devote so much time and energy? As they, "actions speak louder than words" -- and your words seem very dim compared to the action of thousands of contributors.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  > That's your problem not mine 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?
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    For all practical purposes, by contributing, they (employers or individuals) are agreeing (in whole or in part, through organisation or individually) with the direction and vision that Linus has established enough to contribute. So in the end, all of your convoluted arguments about not being in complete agreement and frameworks is pointless.
    - mortdeus 13y ago
      What's funny about this discussion is the fact that Linus is supreme dictator of kernel.org. Whatever he decides to merge in his personal fork of Linux shouldn't be up for debate just because the Linux community willingly decides to keep pulling his commits into their clones. 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.