Tech Writers Spreading FUD About GPLv3 411
Tookis writes "Tech writers are spreading FUD about GPLv3 because they fear its take up will slow the adoption of Linux, according to this open source writer. "A large number of tech writers — I wouldn't call them journalists and sully my own profession — are fearful that the license will slow adoption of Linux in the workplace. And that would lead to a lessening of their own importance and influence."" So by posting this, am I spreading fud about spreading fud? I think I broke my brain.
Like the InformationWeek sham? (Score:4, Informative)
InformationWeek published an old mail claiming that it was "latest" post-GPLv3 news [fsfe.org].
Get off my lawn (Score:5, Informative)
But sullying mine isn't a problem, huh? Technical writer == someone who writes technical documentation, e.g. product manuals. Technical writer != FUD-spreading blogger.
--
hcdejong
(technical writer)
Inaccuracy awards: Informationweek wins again! (Score:5, Informative)
In support of TFA: the above Iweek story really takes the cake for "most clueless" author on the subject of the GPL. One can take it as evidence that the GPL3 has become such a buzzword in the community that tech writers feel forced to comment even before they have even the slightest clue what the fuss is all about.
PJ over at groklaw politely stomped the author into the ground as one can see here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070713
Whle always a fan, I admire her tact here: she did it a lot less painfully than some in comments section of the original article
Print Version, incoherency (Score:4, Informative)
So here's the print version
http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_co
I'm not sure what "you'll won't" is supposed to mean.. in "You'll won't have much success in convincing them - play has to go in one direction for them to move forward". Must be Aussie. Then again, the article is incoherent overall.
I'm not entirely sure what the article is about;
is it about the misunderstandings of the GPLv3?
If so - then why doesn't it list and address these misunderstandings? He links to a talk by Moglen in the end and recommends listening to it - but doesn't say why beyond saying that Moglen is a demi-god and by jove you should listen to him.
is it about the purported FUD being spread by other 'tech authors'?
If so - then why doesn't it give examples of this FUD?
is it about the reasonings behind this purported FUD-spreading - namely that the tech authors feel that they would become less relevant if GPLv3 were to become a 'success' in that it would slow adoption of the GPLv3 (huh?) ?
if so - then maybe he could explain -why- he thinks those 'tech authors' are using these reasonings, and how they are flawed in them?
The whole article reads like a bad blog posting.
But goob job on Slashdot for making it front-page material.. must be that 'GPLv3' keyword.
Grow up! (Score:5, Informative)
For goodness sake people. Troll does not mean "I don't agree with him". "Flamebait" is only flamebait if it's written for no other reason than to upset people. FUD is only FUD if it was intended to spread unfounded Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
Technical Writing (Score:4, Informative)
The there is this Groklaw Comment in response! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070713
There was a comment following this that was interesting regarding the author still not liking GPLv3 - that concludes that all that GPLv3 does is make software pure as math (the same as the UK Court of Appeal, th UK high court, has done by outlawing software patents)!
see: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&s
Why does Slashdot run FUD that is incorrect? It really should not see the light of day in the first place?
"Don't get cute with the wording" (Score:1, Informative)
Tivo got cute with the wording because although you can argue effectively that if THEY can install or remove programs from your Tivo, why can't you, you'd actually have to argue.
MS got cute with the wording by saying "we aren't licensing, we're just saying we won't sue if you pay us" (the NotADuck conundrum).
These both are there in the GPL2 (all information to create the binary: but you haven't the signature changes the binary, and look it looks like a license, you pay like a license and you have to agree to things like a license. It's a license) the GPL just spelled it out clearly.
The GPL3 also got rid of many parochialisms from the GPL2, where terms and references were US-centric. These give options to weasel out of the obligations for foreign countries.
Re:Strange.. (Score:5, Informative)
In case you mean this recent
Linus is in fact pretty ok [com.com] with how GPLv3 turned out [digg.com].
Re:I wouldn't worry about sullying your profession (Score:2, Informative)
Where is the concern about sullying the reputation of real technical writers, of which I am one? You know, the kind that produce documentation that actually helps people understand concepts and accomplish tasks. Perhaps the author is unaware of the difference? I prefer not to be lumped in with every opinionated attention-seeking semi-literate gadget-obsessed blogger-for-hire out there. Let me see... Journalists...reputation...media... Any way I can work in a FOX News or Conrad Black joke here?
Just in time: here's part two (Score:3, Informative)
And now InformationWeek have replied with a badly executed straw man:
Re:It's Us or Them (Score:4, Informative)
The GNU core utilities form a significant portion of the operating system. There are no real alternatives, and they're not optional, or required in only some systems as nVidia's drivers are (excepting embedded systems, perhaps) - every single Linux system needs them. Without them, a computer running Linux is useless, not just for your work-specific requirements, but for everything. Without them, the operating system wouldn't operate.
Re:A question I have about GPL v3 (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, that only works if the patented part is added by the patent holder.
Re:Strange.. (Score:3, Informative)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 [lkml.org]
http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched [fsf.org]
The "pretty ok" article you link, however, is dated several months ago: March 28, 2007.
Re:I wouldn't worry about sullying your profession (Score:4, Informative)
By "tech writers" he means technology writers, not technical writers.
I in fact use this term to describe myself. I don't call myself a journalist because I have friends who are journalists. These people spent tens of thousands of dollars to go to journalism school, then graduated and got themselves jobs making tens of thousands of dollars a year writing up real news about real things happening in their communities -- things that are important to real people -- and without so much as a "thank you." They do a job that's far more important than blabbering about the freakin iPhone. I don't envy them, but I respect them -- enough to allow them the privilege of keeping the term "journalist" for themselves.
That said, I read TFA and I would not call the author a journalist either, not by a long shot.
Here's one for starters: Any article that includes blanket generalizations such as "many tech writers are putting down the GPLv3" -- and then fails to give so much as a single example -- is just page filler. This guy is the purest example of a crap-hound tech writer with nothing to say. I have no idea how this made the homepage.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Informative)