6 ms·

The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. The GPL3 expresses the same philosophy as the GPL2. GNU released a n

by copx 13y ago

The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. The GPL3 expresses the same philosophy as the GPL2. GNU released a new version only because companies discovered a loophole (a bug if you will) in the GPL which allowed them to build non-free (as in GNU) systems based on GPL software. GNU was founded to fight such systems. However, Linus Torvalds (Linux and git) has no problems with non-free at all and in fact wanted to support the production of such systems. Like many users of the GPL2 he never actually shared the goals of GNU. Git's license was deliberately chosen to support the building of non-free systems. According to GNU ideology that is evil. If you are a GNU contributor you are not supposed to even link to non-free solutions. So yeah, of course the hardcore GNU ideologues do not like git or the people behind it.

mpyne 13y ago
> The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. Not necessarily true... it might simply be that they feel the goals of GNU are better pushed for via means other than GPLv3. E.g. read a statement by Linux kernel devs regarding the second draft of GPLv3: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 Has nothing to do with not supporting the goals of GNU, and more to do with not introducing end use restrictions (which is a significant restraint on software freedom), the risk of balkanizing the FLOSS community (which has actually come true to some extent), etc.
- belorn 13y ago
  Please don't bring up that old discussion about an 7 old draft of a license. There is better articles about the actually license as it exist (like http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/open-source/6882/torvalds-puts-support-behind-gpl-2-licence/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/open-source/6882/torvald...).
Karunamon 13y ago
Not agreeing with the FSF's rather dogmatic stances does not make you "anti-free-software". Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". (Except in the eyes of zealots, but who cares about them?)
- belorn 13y ago
  > Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". While true, its a bit odd of a statement. The following statements are also equally true: Having no problem with deforestation does not make you "anti-environmentalist". Having no problem with Ku Klux Klan members does not make you "anti-tolerance". Having no problem with murder and theft does not make you "anti-government". Except... if you are helping others in deforestation, the environmentalism movement will dislike you. If you are helping the Ku Klux Klan, the tolerance movement will dislike you. If you are helping murders, the government will lock you in. So why do you label FSF as zealots for disliking actions that helps those that want to threaten users with lawsuits and prevent new versions of software for being used, shared or modified?
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >So why do you label FSF as zealots for disliking actions that helps those that want to threaten users with lawsuits Without even getting into the broken-ness of your analogies, being anti-DRM and anti-patent-abuse and so on is one thing. Calling someone evil because they don't publish the source of their app is quite another. According to their dogma, if I write a program and don't release the source code, I have perpetrated some horrible thing on the world. Regardless of any other interaction I might have with a user of my app. Pardon my French, but that's fucking idiotic. And even if I do release the source, I'm in the wrong if I don't release it under their pet license of choice. (Though not exactly "evil".) What if my goal is to just see my code in use, not get embroiled in political battles? BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow! And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama! My problem with the FSF is that they assume they are Right, their stance is Right, and anyone who disagrees or dissents is Wrong. Hence dogma. I know religions with more ideological tolerance.
    - belorn 13y ago
      > What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow! Say you developed a program that keep tracks of group of people. The Ku Klux Klan use it to track down black people, and the anti-tolerance movement use it to track Ku Klux Klan. You helped the world and the anti-tolerance movement should be happy right? If they would prefer that the tool could not be used by the Ku Klux Klan, then they are evil zealots with no ideological tolerance. Pardon my French too, but that's is fucking idiotic. > And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama! That is a very dishonest statement. People can use Debian without becoming involved with politics and drama. I will state fact-less that most people who use GPL have not becoming involved with politics and drama. > I know religions with more ideological tolerance. Like BSD proponents I suppose? You own comment stated BSD as the right choice and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Maybe instead of preaching tolerance, you practice tolerance of people that disagree with you. Is it not more tolerant behavior avoid derogatory terms?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. Plenty of people share the (publicly stated) goals of the GNU project regarding free software, but disagree with the FSF's approach to realizing those goals, particularly with the GPLv3. (With the GPLv2 I merely thought that the FSF's approach was more restrictive than was necessary, with the GPLv3 and the use-based discrimination in the anti-tivoization clause, I find it actively harmful.)

by copx 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

> The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. Not necessarily true... it might simply be that they feel the goals of GNU are better pushed for via means other than GPLv3. E.g. read a statement by Linux kernel devs regarding the second draft of GPLv3: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 Has nothing to do with not supporting the goals of GNU, and more to do with not introducing end use restrictions (which is a significant restraint on software freedom), the risk of balkanizing the FLOSS community (which has actually come true to some extent), etc.

belorn 13y ago
Please don't bring up that old discussion about an 7 old draft of a license. There is better articles about the actually license as it exist (like http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/open-source/6882/torvalds-puts-support-behind-gpl-2-licence/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/open-source/6882/torvald...).

Karunamon 13y ago

Not agreeing with the FSF's rather dogmatic stances does not make you "anti-free-software". Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". (Except in the eyes of zealots, but who cares about them?)

belorn 13y ago
> Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". While true, its a bit odd of a statement. The following statements are also equally true: Having no problem with deforestation does not make you "anti-environmentalist". Having no problem with Ku Klux Klan members does not make you "anti-tolerance". Having no problem with murder and theft does not make you "anti-government". Except... if you are helping others in deforestation, the environmentalism movement will dislike you. If you are helping the Ku Klux Klan, the tolerance movement will dislike you. If you are helping murders, the government will lock you in. So why do you label FSF as zealots for disliking actions that helps those that want to threaten users with lawsuits and prevent new versions of software for being used, shared or modified?
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >So why do you label FSF as zealots for disliking actions that helps those that want to threaten users with lawsuits Without even getting into the broken-ness of your analogies, being anti-DRM and anti-patent-abuse and so on is one thing. Calling someone evil because they don't publish the source of their app is quite another. According to their dogma, if I write a program and don't release the source code, I have perpetrated some horrible thing on the world. Regardless of any other interaction I might have with a user of my app. Pardon my French, but that's fucking idiotic. And even if I do release the source, I'm in the wrong if I don't release it under their pet license of choice. (Though not exactly "evil".) What if my goal is to just see my code in use, not get embroiled in political battles? BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow! And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama! My problem with the FSF is that they assume they are Right, their stance is Right, and anyone who disagrees or dissents is Wrong. Hence dogma. I know religions with more ideological tolerance.
  - belorn 13y ago
    > What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow! Say you developed a program that keep tracks of group of people. The Ku Klux Klan use it to track down black people, and the anti-tolerance movement use it to track Ku Klux Klan. You helped the world and the anti-tolerance movement should be happy right? If they would prefer that the tool could not be used by the Ku Klux Klan, then they are evil zealots with no ideological tolerance. Pardon my French too, but that's is fucking idiotic. > And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama! That is a very dishonest statement. People can use Debian without becoming involved with politics and drama. I will state fact-less that most people who use GPL have not becoming involved with politics and drama. > I know religions with more ideological tolerance. Like BSD proponents I suppose? You own comment stated BSD as the right choice and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Maybe instead of preaching tolerance, you practice tolerance of people that disagree with you. Is it not more tolerant behavior avoid derogatory terms?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The people who avoid the GPL3 do it because they do not share the goals of the GNU project. Plenty of people share the (publicly stated) goals of the GNU project regarding free software, but disagree with the FSF's approach to realizing those goals, particularly with the GPLv3. (With the GPLv2 I merely thought that the FSF's approach was more restrictive than was necessary, with the GPLv3 and the use-based discrimination in the anti-tivoization clause, I find it actively harmful.)