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.
Strange.. (Score:3, Interesting)
All of Our Brains Are Broke (Score:4, Interesting)
True.
That doesn't mean that his arguments don't have merit.
I've never even heard the arguments and underpinnings against the GPLv3 concerning the adoption of Linux! Perhaps you should include both sides of the discussion in your article if you wish for me to consider you a journalist.
If I ever saw FUD of FUD, this is it.
Personally... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm paricularly against the "Tivoization" clause and cannot for the life of me see what benefits it gives to the copyright holder or user of the code. All it seems to do as far as I can see is take away the freedom to use my code in the way I originally granted.
Bob
Re:this is a news story? (Score:2, Interesting)
Too complicated (Score:4, Interesting)
Several ways (Score:4, Interesting)
Another is that the GPLv3 IS more restrictive. I appreciate that the reason for it is to try and give the public more freedom, however for companies making use of it, its more restrictive. It is possible that those companies will find it unacceptable and thus dump Linux. Don't think they can't do it either, Linksys dumped Linux for vxWorks on its routers (allegedly for memory reasons). There are other options out there, and those options will get used if companies decide, rightly or wrongly, that the license on Linux makes it unusable for them.
Yet another would be by creating a perceived problem with OSS. We've seen a real giant (Linus) come out and blast the GPLv3. While that doesn't mean anything ultimately, it can to companies. Now there's concern about a coming divide and what could happen. The "But you've got the code!" argument doesn't hold any water for places that don't have many/any programmers. They want a product that works and is supported. Now while this isn't actually likely to change that, it can create concern that it will.
Mostly it is just a perception thing. Confusion and disagreements are never good, especially if you are the little guy. It makes PHB types nervous and they are the ones who ultimately make the decisions. You can scream till you are blue in the face that it shouldn't be like that, but that is how it is and we have to deal with that reality.
Re:It's Us or Them (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Personally... (Score:2, Interesting)
You see, the problem with the GPL in general but more so with v3, is every time it gets modified it becomes more restrictive. For publishing such a "free" license, the GPL is actually rather restrictive. It isn't Free for All software, it is Free the Way RMS wants it to be. Like many groups that started out with good intentions (read up on the travesty that Green Peace has become), the FSF is heading in the same direction with their poor licensing and political statements.
As always, I think RMS is a poor spokesperson for the free-software movement, but most the people who would be better do not have the time to dedicate because of families and/or life. *looks for Bruce to show up*
Re:Strange.. (Score:5, Interesting)
My projects are web applications so I decided to switch them over to GPL3 because of better internationalization in the license. I did not want someone from another country nit-picking the GPL2 license for mis-understood translations of the document in a foreign courtroom so I switched the license.
I understand both Linus's and the FSF point of view on controlling the hardware but since that part of the license doesn't effect my projects at all I do not see the point of letting a better worded license go to waste!
I think a lot of projects don't need to care about this hardware issue and hardware companies could always ask the copyright holder for permission anyway. I see a few problems with Linus's thinking.
1) Is it so hard for Motorola for example to just send an email off to the copyright holder.. "Hey mind if you put your stuff in our phone and not let anyone run the modifications? Could you send us that in writing? Thanks!"
2) How do we know these companies (example Motorola) are contributing back what they are putting into their linux smart phone? What is to stop them from giving out the pretend source code before they made modifications and then keeping the real code in house?
If it can happen it will happen and they can just claim thats stuff they wrote that runs on top no one will know any differently.
I don't really agree with anyones point of view on the hardware issue but you have to admit that there are unanswered questions with regard to Linus's thoughts on the matter.
Re:Personally... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the user owns the phone and should have the right to run any software he wants to on his property? Because GPL software authors may not want to cooperate with vendors trying to take away that freedom from the user?
"I took from another GPLv2 project and I cannot change the license on those."
In your previous comment you said you were going to remove the 'or-later' clause on your software. You do realize that you cannot actually remove that clause if you took the code in question from a v2-or-later licensed project?
Re:It's Us or Them (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition to sounding childish, people generally don't like someone trying to explicitly control their use of language. Actually, that last bit does include a little outrage. People really don't like being told which word to use for something. It takes language from being democratic to being autocratic and there will always be people for whom that REALLY gets under their skin... and when a group that loves throwing around the word 'Freedom' does it, then it gets ironic, hypocritical, and downright grating.
I am beginning to think.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You are an idiot (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, not under the original definition, perhaps. We might identify that definition as "terrorist1", something like:
terrorist1, n. A person carrying out attacks on a civilian population with the purpose of inducing a state of terror in the population, in order to put pressure on their government to change policies.
But if you look for the term in current English texts, you'll find it mostly used in the US and UK, and the definition has clearly changed. Some (but not all) of the recent activities of the US and UK government do satisfy the above terrorist1 definition. Consider the "Shock and Awe" slogan during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is a clear statement of an intent to invoke terror of American firepower in the minds of the civilian population, and the purpose was a takeover of the local government, so it is clear that "terrorist1" applies to the people who used this slogan.
However, hardly anyone in the US or UK media would agree, and they never apply the term "terrorist" to their own government's actions. If you study current usage, you'll find that there is now a new "terrorist2" definition. This usage may be explained in most cases as:
terrorist2, n. Someone that the speaker/writer strongly dislikes; typically used with the purpose of inducing a similar dislike in listeners/readers.
Now, most English dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Their purpose is to aid readers trying to understand texts written in English, rather than to inform readers about some "correct" usage. So we can expect that English dictionaries will soon have an entry something like:
terrorist, n. 1) obs. A person carrying out attacks on a civilian population with the purpose of inducing a state of terror in the population, in order to put pressure on their government to change policies. 2) Someone that the speaker/writer strongly dislikes; typically used with the purpose of inducing a similar dislike in listeners/readers.
I'd expect that many of the dictionary makers already have such a definition prepared for their next issue.
It's an unfortunate artifact of human languages that correctly understanding words often depends on knowledge of when and where the words were used. Many words change their meaning over a time span of a few decades. We are seeing just one of thousands of examples here.
We might also note that most dictionaries published in the US call themselves dictionaries of "the American language", not "English", and have done so for quite a long time.
Re:Personally... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you do not like the GPLv3, chances are you never liked the GPLv2 either. The GPLv3 is not a revolution of the GPL concept, it is just exactly the same ideas adapted to a world where it has become possible to circumvent version 2 by methods unforeseen when it was written. If you are alright with people taking your code and not contributing back, by all means use BSD instead.
Now I would never say that GPLv3 should not exist or that people should not use it, just that it, much like other DRM, seems to me a bit morally shady and at odds with concept of "Freedom".
-Em