- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Does Linus Torvalds Hate Freedom?
According to an ongoing debate over the GPL version 3, he does. How can this be, since Linus Torvalds, creator and chief architect of the Linux kernel, knows about software freedom and free software? He doesn't have a problem with what Richard Stallman refers to as "tivoization," which is the practice of using software available under the terms of a copyleft license but prevents the user/owner from modifying that code through the use of protections. Stallman believes that this is a blatant violation of your freedom. Linus disagrees. |
|
|
Comments (43)
23 earlier comments in the full thread.
> All forms of the GPL are restrictive...
Yes, they are.
The appropriate questions are whether or not those restrictions accomplish the goals of the authors, and whether you agree with those goals or not.
Yes, they are.
The appropriate questions are whether or not those restrictions accomplish the goals of the authors, and whether you agree with those goals or not.
Well guys,
I wouldn't argue with you. Well, I would -- but that would just be for fun.
I know that nobody likes the screaming headline on the article, but... spoken in golf whispers, ie, tivoisation violates the spirit of the GPL, the GPL is what protects our freedoms, etc....
Let's see ---
If you violate the spirit of that which is the protector of freedom, makes it seem like you must be the enemy of freedom to me.
I wouldn't argue with you. Well, I would -- but that would just be for fun.
I know that nobody likes the screaming headline on the article, but... spoken in golf whispers, ie, tivoisation violates the spirit of the GPL, the GPL is what protects our freedoms, etc....
Let's see ---
If you violate the spirit of that which is the protector of freedom, makes it seem like you must be the enemy of freedom to me.
> No Freedom is NOT about doing what you want. That definition of freedom implies anarchy, and I'm pretty sure that those who trot that definition of freedom out don't really want anarchy.
I'm all for anarchy, because I recognize that an-archy (without rulers) is not chaos.
Chaos is the lack of all control, both authority and self-control.
What's interesting is just how much chaos occurs under the most authoritarian regimes, where there is limited liability and therefore a lack of incentive for self-control.
> Freedom is about not being restricted in ones ability to choose [wisely].
Freedom implies everyone else's freedom. Therefore, I am free to act such that my actions do not prevent the same freedom to others. And they, to me.
The freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, for example. Or my freedom to do as I wish with my own property stops where your property begins. Same thing, different words.
> If you violate the spirit of that which is the protector of freedom, makes it seem like you must be the enemy of freedom to me.
I, too, would come to that conclusion.
I'm all for anarchy, because I recognize that an-archy (without rulers) is not chaos.
Chaos is the lack of all control, both authority and self-control.
What's interesting is just how much chaos occurs under the most authoritarian regimes, where there is limited liability and therefore a lack of incentive for self-control.
> Freedom is about not being restricted in ones ability to choose [wisely].
Freedom implies everyone else's freedom. Therefore, I am free to act such that my actions do not prevent the same freedom to others. And they, to me.
The freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, for example. Or my freedom to do as I wish with my own property stops where your property begins. Same thing, different words.
> If you violate the spirit of that which is the protector of freedom, makes it seem like you must be the enemy of freedom to me.
I, too, would come to that conclusion.
@mbt, sorry I have to step into your arena now. However I will forward what ever compensation I receive for it to you. (read the check is in the mail)
And thus we have proof that the MS EULA (or any EULA for that matter) is not a restrictive license using nothing more than the eminently infallible test of 'if you dont like it don't use it'. Thanks for clearing up that point Bob.
And thus we have proof that the MS EULA (or any EULA for that matter) is not a restrictive license using nothing more than the eminently infallible test of 'if you dont like it don't use it'. Thanks for clearing up that point Bob.
AZ,
YBT
Quoting: [...] I will forward what ever compensation I receive for it to you. (read the check is in the mail)Boy that hurts, now I cannot tell if you are one of my best buddies or another MS flak.
YBT
Quoting:All forms of the GPL are restrictive and no amount of happy happy but its my favorite logic can change that, veiled profanity or not.
First the profanity was not carefully veiled, it was carefully designed to be recognisable, while at the same time being opaque to the profanity filters.
Second Az you really don't get the GPL, do you.
The GPL isn't about personal Freedoms, it's about Software freedom. The framers don't give a a rats ar5e about your personal freedoms specifically, any more than Microsoft does with their EULA. You are however, personally, free to choose to use or publish software that is licensed under any type of license, as are the Hardware manufacturers.
The GPL is designed to ensure the freedom of the Software, such that the recipients of that software are Free to do certain things with it, but obviously not others, and the freedom it takes away, by design, is the Freedom to restrict other people's ability to use that Software in the same way you can. As with Bob's Freedom to throw a punch ending at your nose, so too your Freedom to do anything you like with GPLed Software ends at the point where you attempt to restrict other's use of that Software.
The way in which you talk about the GPL being restrictive leads me to the conclusion that you would like to be able to take GPLed code, and deny other people access to it. Sorry, you can't, your personal freedom is curtailed, so that the code can remain Free, deal with it, use code that is licensed under a different license and stop whining.
TA I think you are misunderstanding what a restrictive license is. You defined it yourself, it curtails one event to maintain another. In other words it restricts someone from doing actions which some other person does not wish them to perform with their code. The GPL is a restrictive license in that it prevents others from taking and blocking the use or knowledge of changes for all.
The GPL itself restricts actions that can and can not be done with the code, therein is it defined a restrictive license.
So please don't go accusing me of not understanding the GPLvX. I understand it quite well in it's full actions and limitations.
The GPL itself restricts actions that can and can not be done with the code, therein is it defined a restrictive license.
So please don't go accusing me of not understanding the GPLvX. I understand it quite well in it's full actions and limitations.
Glad to hear that Az, now stop whining about how restrictive it is. If you don't like it you are completely free to use another license, as are the hardware manufacturers like Tivo.
I'm sorry, where was I whining?
Pardon me, my mistake, I confused your constant harping on how the GPL is restrictive of your personal freedoms as whining. You are still free to use any other license.
And I said that where, c'mon TA stop reading words in.
You do it every time the GPL comes up, hence harping or whining.
*sigh*
Were I you, I might go back and re read what I have said about the GPL, even in this thread. You can then stop being prissy because I had the audacity to correct your comment about it being a restrictive license.
Were I you, I might go back and re read what I have said about the GPL, even in this thread. You can then stop being prissy because I had the audacity to correct your comment about it being a restrictive license.
It *is* a restrictive license. TA just thinks those restrictions are a good idea. Linus Torvalds doesn't like some of the restrictions in v.3 so he continues to use v.2 for the kernel. That's his choice, not anybody else's.
TA, it's awfully hard to get into a discussion with you when you brow beat people, tell them to "get over it", call them whiners, etc... The positives and negatives of a given license are a legitimate subject of debate as are differing viewpoints.
TA, it's awfully hard to get into a discussion with you when you brow beat people, tell them to "get over it", call them whiners, etc... The positives and negatives of a given license are a legitimate subject of debate as are differing viewpoints.
Quoting:The positives and negatives of a given license are a legitimate subject of debate as are differing viewpoints.
True, but hasn't it been discussed to death? In the end it boils down to GPL versus BSD/MIT which is nothing but personal taste. We all know how everybody feel about those and no amount of discussion is ever going to change anyone's viewpoint on this. It's like the editor wars but with less humor :-/
> and no amount of discussion is ever going to change anyone's viewpoint on this.
I said that to someone who was trying to tell me I was wrong for homeschooling. I respect that person for being able to instantly drop it. That takes character.
I said that to someone who was trying to tell me I was wrong for homeschooling. I respect that person for being able to instantly drop it. That takes character.
You are wrong for homeschooling.
No matter how much you love your home, it's really pretty dumb and will never be able to put that education to good use.
No matter how much you love your home, it's really pretty dumb and will never be able to put that education to good use.
@dino:
*thwap*
*thwap*
Quoting:True, but hasn't it been discussed to death? In the end it boils down to GPL versus BSD/MIT which is nothing but personal taste. We all know how everybody feel about those and no amount of discussion is ever going to change anyone's viewpoint on this.
What Sander wrote is pretty much what I'm saying, only he's nice and I'm not. I just get so tired of these endless arguments/discussions, that go nowhere.
The licenses are what they are. Use them or not, depending on your needs or desires or prejudices. Use software that is licensed under one or another depending on your needs, desires or prejudices, but stop complaining about one being too restrictive while another isn't. If they were all the same there would be no point in having all of them.
For myself I would treat software licensed under a BSD License the same as if it was licensed under a GPL license, and give back my code, even though I'm not required to, but that's me. Your mileage my differ.
I do notice that those who want to maintain proprietary control over any arbitrary Free software tend to prefer a BSD license, or pay teams of lawyers to find loopholes in a GPL license. That more about corporate greed, than it does about the license, I think.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I have the strongest position here of anyone: hypocrite* - never! Shill, certainly that's what I do.
YBT
* Let's us not revert to your days of pushing the BSD license as the freest of all.