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.
I wouldn't worry about sullying your profession (Score:5, Funny)
The there is this Groklaw Comment in response! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200707131 92403106 [groklaw.net]
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 [groklaw.net]
Re: (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...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
-- Bill O'Reilly, "The O'Reilly Factor"
Fox News writes their own jokes tyvm.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's Us or Them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's Us or Them (Score:5, Funny)
The GNU/Prophet, holiness on his name, has decreed and the GNU/Word of GNU, There is But One GOD, GNU is its Name and Stallman is its Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him.
The GNU/Word of GNU/God is GPL3. Stallman has declared GNU/FUDwah on the heretic Linus for crimes against the GNU/Faith:
Face Berkeley, kneel, and pray.
GNU/Holiness to GNU/God. GNU/Peace to the GNU/Prophet. GNU/Terminate to the Disbelievers, GPL2 Apostates, Other-Than-GPL Open License Perverts, Intellectual Property Holders, Copyright Defenders, Capitalists, for they have given themselves over to be the Children of the Greater and Lesser Closed Satans, Bill Gates and the U.S.A., respectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's Us or Them (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't get the outrage.
Re:It's Us or Them (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's Us or Them (Score:4, Insightful)
It is trivial, but he does have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I guess you'd have to stay away from GNOME, but vendors aren't shipping GNOME embedded in their Tivos so who cares. (and there is always KDE, which iirc is not GPL'd)
It's a point, but not a very well thought out one
Re:What about GNU without Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and in that case you wouldn't call it GNU/Linux. In fact, they don't really call it anything most of the time because most people don't really care about the operating system of their embedded devices as long as it works. The point isn't that Linux can or can't be packaged with other things. The point is that the linux kernel by itself is not an operating system (neither is GNU for that matter).
Linux uses Gnu for the simple reason that Gnu existed, if it didn't exist it wouldn't be very hard to write. A lot of work, yes, but not as difficult as writing an OS kernel, the hurd is there to prove that.
No, I don't think that is true at all. Writing a kernel is hard, but writing a compiler and toolchain isn't easy either. The Hurd has been slow to get off the ground for a lot of reasons. The difficulty of the task is really only one of them.
The Gnu project needs Linux more than Linux needs Gnu.
That's a pretty stupid statement to make. It's like saying strawberry shortcake needs the shortcake more than the strawberries. No, they both need each other equally. You can package Linux with BSD or GNU with Solaris, but very few people do. Most people package GNU with Linux. Seriously, why do people fight this. It's just a name. RMS wants credit for his part in the creation of the modern linux distribution. Why is that so difficult for people to accept?
For the record, I never refer to my operating system as GNU/Linux because it is tedious, and I prefer to just shorten it to Linux. But it is understandable for RMS to request that people refer to it as GNU/Linux. And, if I was ever writing or speaking about it in some sort of official capacity, I would probably extend him that courtesy.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. You don't call it NT Kernel.
Re: (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 wh
Re: (Score:2)
Not fear but Loathing.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only bad people work for corporations... good people work for non-profits or in academia.. or give talks for a living.
You are an idiot (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, it's a different flavor. This one has peanuts in it!
(I should've resisted the urge to post this, but for some reason I find compelled to foist this unpleasant analogy onto Slashdot.)
Re:You are an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
- It was actually meant as a joke.
- The US government is really serious about convincing people that anybody that they don't like is "a terrorist".
- The reason for justify calling someone a terrorist is that it can be used to justify just about any action against that group (and their friends)
.. and even
'collateral damage' like infringing the civil rights of innocent civilians.
... and, yeah, it's all bullshit.
A really good example of 'tagging' someone as evil, is the way that they've been slagging the Chavez government of Venezuela for being a 'un/anti-democratic regime' despite the fact that he has been elected twice (in acceptedly clean elections) -- with a 62.84% majority in his second election, and even put up with a mid-term referendum on whether he should step down (one could only pray that Bush and his cronies would be so kind).Having successfully tagged him as anti-democratic (and pro-terror (??!)), Bush has now taken this as an excuse to do things like impose a military embargo.
So, I think it's a good thing to try and destroy the implication of (now) arbitrary tags like 'terrorist' and 'anti-democratic'.
Re: (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 cha
I don't know... (Score:2)
Strange.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have one of the most influential people in Open Source refuse to accept the license you have written in favour of an incompatible prior version, you have already automatically created a division between idealists and pragmatists, with both technically working on the same codebase.
When your developers can't even decide between them how they want their code used, I can't see any situation where it could help.
He doesn't accept an EULA-style one either (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus may have the goal to see his baby widespread, RMS, the FSF and the license they use don't need to win a popularity contest. As long as there is "free code" (in the Nelson Mandela sense) the license is doing its job. If people don't want to agree to the ideals, then write your own license. RMS won't say you can't, although it looks like the people against the GPL3 want to control what license you're allowed to write or use.
hypocrites
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: (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.
This should be front paged! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:Several ways (Score:5, Insightful)
I know many people at many tech shops, and a shocking lot of companies have come out and said to their programmers or other in-house IT staff, that GPLv3 code can not be used for any project of any kind. Why? Because the GPLv3 is restrictive enough that it conflicts with other agreements these companies already have and cannot or will not break. It's simpler for a company to simply ban the stuff outright than it is to analyse the license ramifications on every single little project.
The end result is that GPLv3 code will, eventually, stagnate. Moving code to GPLv3 basically ensures that nobody will use it other than hobbyists. And while that's fine, it may not be what you want to happen. It's almost certainly not the intention of the GPLv3... or maybe it is. With the FSS being so f-ed up in the head lately, who can tell?
Regardless, it's not FUD... It's actually the license. It's unusable as it stands by a great many people, and the end result is that they will find other, less-restrictive, code to use instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume that you're right about that (but I have no idea of the particulars of cellphone companies). If so, this would only refer, presumably, to the part of the cellphone software that accesses the network. So that particular part could not
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's GNU3/Linux. Please get it right.
Like the InformationWeek sham? (Score:4, Informative)
InformationWeek published an old mail claiming that it was "latest" post-GPLv3 news [fsfe.org].
Just in time: here's part two (Score:3, Informative)
And now InformationWeek have replied with a badly executed straw man:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was duly rewarded with not being able to post for a couple of months. Thankfully the term FUD is quickly falling out of vogue. It's so last century.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully the term FUD is quickly falling out of vogue. It's so last century.
Unfortunately, its mainly just being replaced by accusations of astroturfing. [wikipedia.org] I actually pointed this out to Perens at one point. [slashdot.org] Its really annoying when people assume that there's simply no possible way you can hold your opinion unless you're getting some payout. For example, because I don't think that Vista is completely terrible, I must be a Microsoft shill.
So what I'm trying to say is, I sympathize.
Re: (Score:2)
Even accepting that it exists on an organized basis, I agree with your assessment. Its use is both unnecessary (if your opinion is sound you should be able to effectively rebut your opponent) and lazy (it avoids the onerous task of having to - you know - think.)
They both represent one of the oldest and worst strategies in "debating" - when in doubt, question your opponents motives. Of course, being a paid shill, I
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, could someone explain to me what this means: I recognize all the words, I'm just having trouble understanding what they mean in that order. Oh, thats a whole paragraph from the article, it's also where I stopped reading
this is a news story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The one article he cites (by Brian Profitt, the managing editor of Linux Today) does nothing to support his premise. It's a short put-down of Microsoft and their not-so-open Open XML format.
His other citation is a 1 hr 22 minute video that 99% of people aren't going to watch.
TFA broke my brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Reguardless of your opinion of the author of the article, you should take the time to watch Moglen's speech in Scotland (as linked to in the article). It's worth the time, just to understand why a Columbia University law professor like Moglen would dedicate a year of his life to the FSF.
Spreading FUD about FUD (Score:2)
On behalf of Linux-using technical writers, (Score:3)
Of course, with many of my fellow writers bearing a closer resemblance to "Tina" from Dilbert than technophiles, maybe I'm speaking for the small minority.
FUD about what? (Score:2)
Well, only if you're afraid that the news might slow down the take up of Tech Writers. But frankly, I think that by this time the brand is well enough established as to be pretty much bullet proof.
Of course, that may not apply to the forthcoming release of Tech Writers 2.0, but as far as I remember, that's still in the discussion phase, so it's too early to say anything for definite.
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
tech writers (Score:4, Insightful)
You should have said "tech pundits", not "tech writers". There is an entire profession known as "Technical Writing", sometimes referred to as "tech writing", which has NOTHING to do with self-proclaimed journalists who write about the technical industry.
Get it straight, please. The title of your story shows that you are almost as ignorant as they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
It is designed so that large companies like Microsoft can still earn a living. I heard of at least one embedded Linux platform that is feverishly planning to switch from Linux to Windows because of the Samba's decision to adopt v3.
-Em
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of your software (i.e. a Sudoku for mobile phones [sourceforge.net]), the GPLv3 guarantees the user the four freedoms [gnu.org] (use, modify, distribute, improve), making it impossible to circumvent the GPLv2 with hardware devices. What could happen in your specific case is that a telco takes your code and starts offering it as for-pay download to their user's mobile phones—only that users cannot share it because there is some sort of hardware lock in place.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You see, the problem with the GPL in general but more so with v3, is every time it gets modi
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the whole point of it, the phone, once paid for, belongs to the user, not the phone company. Why shouldnt the user of a phone, which has GPL3 software running on it, have a right to modify that software, and use the modified copy on the same device?
In any case, regardless of your answer to that question, thats the main thing GPL3 does in that respect - it says that the right to modify software includes the right to run the modified software on any device that it was originally distributed on. And that is (one of) the rights that an author choosing to distribute their work under GPL3 wants their users to have. If you, as a software author, dont want to guarantee your users that right, then so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly my point. Why shouldn't they be able to do that? As long as the source is available (which they would still be required to provide - as TiVo are as well) then that seems to me to be the license that I originally gave it.
BTW, I would have been happy with the BS
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
You don't actually have to remove it. Just write a significant change to the code and license that without the 'or later' thus nullifying the clause on the other code (since it's impossible to distribute the whole things as gplv3 it becomes impossible to distribute it at all as gplv3, as the gpl itself demands).
It's a very good idea to do this so you retain control over your code - I perso
Re: (Score:2)
How so? "Version X or later" is a *choice*, to be made by whoever does the distributing.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv3 is at least as different from GPLv2 as GPLv2 is from BSD.
GPLv2 says that the software can't be made non-free. GPLv3 says
Re: (Score:2)
Only distributors can trigger those clauses, since whole point is that the DRM prevents the end user from installing software of their own choice.
Re: (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.
I propose that it is NOT exactly the same ideas as v2 - the key point of v2 is granting the freedom to use the software and modify it as you see fit as long as any changes to software are distributed. This freedom is now abridged in v3 because you no longer can use the code in any place you want, modified or otherwise, with changes distributed or not. It is no longer about taking code and not contributing, it is about who can and cannot use the code at all. The license now dictates how the hardware and sof
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't see why anyone should ever run into the tivoization clause unless they're trying to implement some ridiculous malicious feature like hardware-enforced DRM. Seriously... why put in *extra hardware* to prevent users from voiding the warranty on their appliance?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have to, in order for the appliance to actually work (like, perhaps, anything that needs an AACS license)?
Ludicrous. (Score:5, Insightful)
FUD isn't going to do anything when FOSS is rapidly becoming the easier, cheaper, faster, and better choice for John Q. Public.
What is this crap? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's possible they just think it's a bad idea (Score:2)
These people are tech writers. They write about all sorts of technology. The GPL is just one of many subjects of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
questions for the author (Score:4, Insightful)
You spend some time in your article attacking various unnamed tech writers for their work on GPLv3, and hold up Brian Profitt of Linux Magazine, and Eben Moglen, as examples of good writing on the topic.
Can you identify a specific column that you disagree with? Or a specific author? Or at least something more specific than the general doom-and-gloom nonspecific "end of FOSS" warning that you quote?
I am far from expert on GPLv3 (haven't even read it), but it strikes me that a large number of the people concerned about version 3 aren't exactly slouches, unless you're prepared to call Torvalds a hack. I'd like a concrete example of a claim you're trying to debunk.
Oh, and while we're at it: when you're looking down your nose at other tech writers that you deem unworthy of the title "journalist," you should probably start trying to observe some fairly basic journalistic principles yourself. For example: Eben Moglen, whom you correctly identify as having worked for the Free Software Foundation, is a co-author of the GPLv3 draft [internetnews.com] , which doesn't exactly position him as an unbiased observer.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call Linus a hack, but I would call him a hacker.
Re: (Score:2)
I thank you for providing a specific example of an article you found objectionable. (Irony: my place of business finds the very phrase objectionable, so much so that I can't Google it. I will try to remember to read it this evening.) I also thank you for providing a specific example of a claim that you fou
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.
Small favor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPLv3 looks like it was written by lawyers. GPLv2 doesn't.
GPLv3 cares about *why* you're distributing the program. GPLv2 doesn't.
GPLv3 tries to make things like the MS/Novell deal not work.
GPLv3 is more explicit about patents.
And probably more...
We Know Drama (Score:2)
It's a license. There are a lot of them. Now you have the choice if you want it that allows you to prevent people from locking your code into proprietary hardware, or prevent people from taking over your project with patents. What's the big fucking deal? Is a legal license written in plain English rather than lawyerese really that difficult to understand? Are people really that pissed off that some aging hippie's flowery software
Re: (Score:2)
This creates a split - gplv2 projects and gplv3 projects, whereas previously there were only gpl projects.
gpl has always been a bitch to work with but now it's doubly so because you have to check which *version* of the gpl is in use, and you could be left high and dry if a project you're linking to goes gplv3 on you (a lot of samb
Too complicated (Score:4, Interesting)
There are reasons for some push-back on GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see both views, and both views make sense given the freedom of the author's to do whatever they please with their code. The GPLv3 makes more sense for me personally, yet others I know think it's potentially highly confining, if 'purist'.
That tech writers think it'll slow down adoption is more of a Microsoft fantasy than reality. That the GPLv3 closes odd loopholes is all the better. I hope that Linus figures out that he actually needs to consider that a GPLv4 needs his input might get him the goals he's seeking. He's going to have to lift his head out of the sand one of these days and help form what he's inadvertenly made (along with Stallman and thousands of others), the most highly viable OS. What was once a ego fantasy is now a reality far beyond anyone's wildest imaginations. There's a maturation point where you're a leader, or a follower of what you've inspired. I hope he picks "leader" and gets off the kernel kick long enough to make corrections suggestions that he can 'lead' with. Simply bashing something (pardon the pun) isn't constructive. It might work in coding, but not when you have to gain consensus.
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.
Creating or describing? (Score:2, Redundant)
not tech writers too! (Score:3, Funny)
Geez. (Score:5, Insightful)
This article decries critics of GPLv3, dismissing their rants as FUD. The author, however, gives no examples of these critics and offers no evidence for why he considers them to be wrong, nor any ideas of why they would choose to spread their FUD. Besides the terrible writing, formatting and grammar of this article it is needlessly split into two pages, annoyingly prompting you to log in if you want to read the second page. Oddly enough though they will provide you with the full text of the article if you click on the links to print it or view it as a PDF (which, by the way, has even worse formatting than the web formatting).
The Firefox article, while an interesting topic, was really just a regurgitation of a study done by another site rewritten so that it was less informative and more difficult to read. Besides that, it included several obvious typos such as the following:Really, there are countries where IE has not yet reached 20% market share? Are you sure you don't mean Firefox?Ah yes, the beautiful country of Australasia, I hope I can visit it someday!
Technical Writing (Score:4, Informative)
Its well founded FUD... (Score:2, Troll)
Thus I would be concerned myself that GPLv3 will reduce the adoption of the open-source code, as it get farther and farther away from the BSD model of "do whatever you want".
Re: (Score:2)
1) The anti-DRM clause is obviously designed to stop some business adoption - it's a design goal. Basicly, are you shipping a consumer device only running signed software? Y/N. I think it's good because to me, it's no longer free software that you can modify it was just some free code that the developers got to use. That you can run the code on some completely different hardware is at best a curiosity, normally the reason that you buy an appliance is that it's mu
Re: (Score:2)
How is it "more viral"? How are any of the other things relevant to most businesses?
Sure, a couple companies like Tivo are going to have to find ways to implement their malicious features without denying users the ability to modify the GPLed software they're using i
Um... (Score:5, Funny)
"...they fear its take up will slow the adoption of Linux..."
I started going to LUG meetings over nine years ago. As much I love Linux, I don't think its rate of adoption could go much slower than it already is.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That will change very soon--I heard it's almost ready for the desktop!
A question I have about GPL v3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Some universities have a lot of patents and some of them offer free mirrors for things like kernel.org and sourceforge.net projects. It may be that the act of offering a mirror is protected under the DMCA safe harbor, but if copyright license law is as powerful as some GPLv3 proponents claim, it's not even clear that the DMCA safe harbor would override section 10 of the GPL. In any case, some mirrors work by pulling code rather than letting code be pushed, so that seems like an affirmative act of copying the software and then creating and giving copies to the general public, so an entity operating a mirror might be "conveying" under the GPL.
So, for example, if MIT has a patent I want to use, maybe all I have to do is get committer rights to some relevant project, code up something which infringes the patent, get the patch accepted (never mentioning the patent, of course), and it gets distributed to all the mirrors, including MIT's.
I download it from MIT, and voila! I have a license to use that patent inside that program (and apparently inside any GPLed derivatives I make of that program. Being the proprietary sort of guy I am, I wrap the GPL project's code with another completely proprietary program which controls it and lets the GPLed code do the patented dirty work.
I don't know whether this would work or not, but I'm starting to understand why companies are now marketing "open source" license scrubbers.
The FSF is certainly free to do this with the GPL. But while the consequences of just distributing source under v2 might have been intended to convey patents in this same way, a lot of people didn't realize that because the wording there is not as clear, and the remedies don't appear to be as onerous. V3 section 10 seems to make it very clear that if you convey code which implements a patented invention, you cannot sue anybody over using that invention in that code, and that "convey" would cover the act of proactively operating a mirror site.
This should give pause to a lot of people, not just Microsoft. Right now, "everybody knows" that GPL2 is a safe license, in the same category as BSD, well away from the category of any proprietary license, for being able to freely redistribute source code.
Those who assume the same about GPLv3 do so at their own peril, perhaps to their own detriment. It appears that, for an entity with a valuable patent, inadvertently distributing one copy of GPLv3 software could easily be much more costly than inadvertently distributing a few hundred copies of a Microsoft product.
The way universities work, it is unlikely that the legal counsel stays on top of things like kernel.org mirrors, but it seems that anybody with a patent portfolio who is running a free software mirror of any type ought to take a serious look at their policies and at the terms of GPLv3.
Perhaps one valid component of licensing strategy would be to repudiate GPL v3 (and any similar licenses which purport to appropriate your own patents), just like Microsoft has done. That would basically be a public announcement that, if anybody catches you distributing GPL v3 code, please let you know right away because it is not your intention to ever do so and you will stop distributing immediately, and if anybody thinks they're getting one of your patents out of the deal, you plan on fighting it every inch of the way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, that only works if the patented part is added by the patent holder.
Too Late (Score:4, Insightful)
Proof (Score:2)
Well, of course it will. Duh. Proof? Will entity X be *more* likely do adopt Linux because of GPL v3? I think the answer to that it clearly 'no'. Are there entities that will shy away from Linux if GPL v3 gains a foothold? I think the answer is clearly 'yes'. Therefore, GPL v3 will slow Linux adoption. QED.
The question is whether the *rate* of slowing really matters that much.