TFiR
2 HN recommenders · recommended in 17 months, 2015–2025
9:33 · 515K views · Sep 4, 2014
A short TFiR clip of Linus Torvalds explaining why he thinks GPLv3 violates what GPLv2 stood for. He describes why he chose GPLv2 for kernel development and his view of the FSF's approach.
Cited again and again in GPL licensing debates as the primary source for Linus's objections to GPLv3.
20 comments from Hacker News
Well, I don't think I agree with him and would licence GPL code with the "or later" clause, but he has a very reasonable and convincing argument against it. See this video of him explaining his take on GPLv3 and the "or later" clause at Deb Conf if you are interested: this video
Here is an excellent video of Linus talking about why he specifically chose the GPLv2 and how he felt betrayed when the FSF released GPLv3: this video
Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration. Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project. So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever. This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL. This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code. What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part. [LINK] for an article and this video for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general. The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this.
I am sorry that I have to say this, but large parts of the GNU/Linux community are just irrational idealists hard to work with. Read the GPLv3, it's a great political document, and somewhere in there there also is a software license, hidden between the lines. Linus always said: He cares about the code back and otherwise not what vendors do with it. He is not in any sense one of those GNU-people about Software Freedom everywhere and for all. When the Free Software Foundation (FSF) created the GPLv3, indeed during the process, Linus already spoke out against it and said he would never ever use it[1]. He cited reasonable use-cases for which vendors have no other way than to not to give open access to devices, in part for example commercial license agreements. The GPLv3 - from the perspective of the FSF - fixes some vital flaws in GPLv2, from Linus' perspective however is just too strict, forbids use-cases Linux has been used before previously and is extremely anti-business and would hurt the Linux project. Whether this step of the Linux foundation is right or not, can't say for sure, but I totally understand it. A political anti-business pro-freedom-everywhere radical who already is involved in suing some of the companies she is supposed to work with on that said board? Sounds like a headache you would want to avoid at all costs. [1] this video
Well, have a crack at it, then. Here is Torvalds talking about how he sees the point of the earlier GPL being subverted by v3, and that he thinks that the FSF lied to people about it. In his opinion, it should have been named a different license. He goes into detail about how it's not the license he hates, but how the FSF behaved around it. this video > since they wrote both the GPL itself and the four freedoms Also, having been part of organisations that have operated against their own philosophical principles and mission statements, I don't accept that the FSF is immune to changing their angle on things. And having hung around plenty of radical progressives growing up, I've seen some handy re-rationalisations of earlier positions. Overall, I'm on the side of the FSF. But fucked if I'm going to be part of this thing that progressives do, which is piss all over their allies (in this case, ubuntu) just because their opinion is slightly different to one's own. If someone's going to raise the "nuh-uh, subversion of license = evil", then fuck it, here is a video of someone at the heart of the whole licensing debate literally saying that the FSF behaved immorally about licenses too.