Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites'

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the family-fued dept.

Linux Business 920

AlexGr writes "We've heard conflicting tales regarding Linus Torvalds' acceptance of GPLv3. InformationWeek reports on comments by Mr. Torvalds that would seem to decide the issue: 'Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites ... For Torvalds' part, it appears unlikely he'll ever adopt GPLv3 for the Linux kernel. He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3. "Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.'"

cancel ×

920 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fork? (4, Interesting)

dn15 (735502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853993)

If Linus doesn't like where the GPL is going, he could make his own fork...

Really, I say this mostly for the purpose of humor, but it's true. If there's enough objection to GPLv3 maybe someone will introduce an alternate version based on GPLv2 that allows it to be updated in the future but without the conditions present in v3.

Re:Fork? (1, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854077)

hehehe.. no, he can't. The GPL is not free for non-verbatim redistribution. If he wants to make a NEW copyleft license, from scratch, he can do that, but he can't fork the GPL.

Linus has the problem in that he got involved with Free Software without actually "drinking the kool-aid" and now he doesn't like everyone expecting him to go along with the faith.

Re:Fork? (2, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854145)

The GPL is not free for non-verbatim redistribution.

I don't see why not. You can't take something released under the GPL and pick-and-choose which parts you want to redistribute under, but if you're the original copyright holder, I don't see why you wouldn't be permitted to use an altered form of the GPL for distributing your old code. When you're the original copyright holder, you can license your IP however you please. Or am I wrong?

Re:Fork? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854225)

What you're missing is the copyright on the GPL itself.
You can't just willy nilly make your own derivative GPL.
You could make up a whole new license, though, with similar principles.

Re:Fork? (4, Informative)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854353)

Well, these guys [affero.org] did it, and the GPLv3 even mentions it [gnu.org] :

13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

Re:Fork? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854149)

Linus has the problem in that he got involved with Free Software without actually "drinking the kool-aid" and now he doesn't like everyone expecting him to go along with the faith.

Oh, well in that case all he needs to do is wait it out.

Re:Fork? (4, Informative)

dn15 (735502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854157)

I was intrigued by what you said about not being able to make a new GPL-based license so I looked it up on the FSF website [fsf.org] :

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?

You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to <licensing@gnu.org> for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.

Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

Re:Fork? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854241)

You sir are blessed. Only a male with no sex life has time to look that up, and clarify grandparents completely ignorant, off the cuff, made up on the spot, remark.

seriously though, thank you.

Re:Fork? (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854209)

He could simply make a license that says 'All the terms of the GPLv2 apply, with these modifications'. Or he could even attach a diff. Just like you can make non-free patches to free software, so long as you don't distribute them compiled in with the real software.

Re:Fork? (5, Interesting)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854423)

Exactly. Some people say the GPL is evil and viral. This is because they either do not understand it properly, or because they disagree with it. If you are in avour of free software, you can go the GPL route or the BSD route. You writes your code and takes your choice... the GPL is one of the most elegant hacks ever, and having been involved in some legal shenangans on the topic, I can honestly say I've never known anything else that can ruin a lawyer's day quite so effectively. It's a fucking work of art.

Pardon my language, it's late and I had a long week... (bloody Belgians!!... don't ask.)

Re:Fork? (1)

exley (221867) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854183)

But what is GPLv2 licensed under? That'll end up being the issue there.

consensus (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854351)

wouldn't everyone who has copyrighted code int he linux kernel have to agree to change the license?

who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854001)

linus is a jackass. he does some hack code and you guys all adore him? please. get a life.

Darth Ar'Emess (3, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854007)

...because only a sith deals in absolutes!

Re:Darth Ar'Emess (4, Funny)

rleibman (622895) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854071)

You've just stated an absolute ("Only Sith's deal in absolutes") therefore sir... you are a Sith.

Re:Darth Ar'Emess (2, Insightful)

gangien (151940) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854273)

offtopic but isn't that statement ironic when obi Wan says it? isn't by saying that, he, himself using an absolute statement? :P

I for one..... (4, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854011)

....have my tin hat on and am hiding under the desk to avoid this flamefest.

In other words (3, Funny)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854017)

To steal from John Hodgeman... Anyone who uses the GPLv3 are lepers with tuberculosis.

duh (5, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854021)

"He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3."

Does this mean that Linus didn't understand that the FSF is a organization with specific goals based on the morals of it's members? It's kinda obvious.

Re:duh (3, Funny)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854089)

Hush! Our lord and savior is speaking.

Re:duh (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854111)

Yeah, it's so funny. I know, I'll use this GPL license for my software, it looks like a good way to get people to contribute changes back to me! Free Software? What's that? Oh, yeah, that's cool, not really my cup of tea though, thanks guys. What? Yeah, I'm going to keep using your license. WTF?

Re:duh (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854265)

To be fair to Linus, he objects to GPL version 3, not version 2 which he off course is using. Perhaps he feels like they are pushing more morality into GPL 3 as it is more about DRM and stuff like that than what was the case with GPL 2.

Re:duh (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854303)

If you don't believe that proprietary software is immoral (and Linus doesn't) then you don't follow RMS. Why use his license? Especially when he's made it absolutely clear what his position is and that he does and will continue to use his license to promote that position.

Re:duh (4, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854143)

Pretty much. I don't see anything inconsistent or hypocritical about the license or its proponents. Linus will clearly keep using the GPL2, as that's the license everyone contributes to Linux under. But those who do want to inject some extra "morality" into their software license are free to do so.

The ruler is not just a king, he's a God, so disagreeing with him is immoral, but it's also illegal, and you can get your head cut off," Torvalds continued
That's moronic. If you don't like the license, don't use it. If someone else's code is licensed only under the GPL3...tough, it's not your code. Don't use it. Anyway, aside from GCC, there are plenty of BSD alternatives to most GNU projects. If many people don't like the license, they'll contribute to those instead, or fork an older GPL2 version.

Re:duh (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854215)

no, he is refering to RMS's rabid obession and attack dog attitude.

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854323)

no, he is refering to RMS's rabid obession and attack dog attitude.

Care to cite any instances of this? I find RMS is one of those people who is consistently misrepresented. Sure, if you ask him about something, he's happy to say that he thinks something is immoral, but I can't think of any instances where he's actively sought to attack people.

Re:duh (1, Interesting)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854375)

Anyway, aside from GCC, there are plenty of BSD alternatives to most GNU projects.

You know, after EGCS (and the associated bazaar development model) became the official GCC branch, I kinda figured they'd face the same problem as the kernel does of producing a GPLv3 branch--with thousands of contributers having provided their work under GPLv2, it would be impossible to track them all down and get their permission to relicense their work as GPLv3. Yet I see announcements for GPLv3 trumpeting the fact that the GCC project is "on board". Can someone explain to me what I'm missing here?

That's moronic. If you don't like the license, don't use it.

I have to disagree. He's making a valid point that RMS approaches the entire "Open Source/Free Software" debate as not a legal or even ethical issue, but a moral issue. The use of the word "moral" isn't an invention of Linus, that's the word RMS uses to describe it himself. That means RMS is declaring himself a religious leader, which is patently absurd. We already have enough "holy wars" in hacker culture without someone actively pursuing religious agendas.

Re:duh (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854425)

It's like Linus just woke up and discovered that RMS is a religious leader. We've all know this for years. Many of us are members of his religion.

Re:duh (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854441)

Considering the GPL starts with a non-legalese description of the moral philosophy behind the GPL, I find it hard to fathom how anyone could think the FSF was from the beginning "injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software". Duh, the whole existence of the Free Software movement and the GPL is due to RMS' moral views on software and the rights of users.

And while I may not agree completely with the language of GPLv3, it still seems perfectly consistant with the moral view that RMS has been expressing since the 80s. Every new thing in GPLv3 is there to try to close a loophole that allowed someone to not grant the rights RMS believes users should have. I have no idea how Linus can call them hypocrits. I was with him more when he was simply saying that it was misguided.

Linus is a smart guy, and he wisely avoids the morality/politics of the FSF most of the time. But he ain't perfect and his decisions to sacrifice principles for practicality can come back to bite him -- see Bitkeeper for a poignant example of how "choose the best tool for the job" but ignoring the license and how that affects the tool's usefulness is the wrong way to be pragmatic and apolitical.

With apologies to RMS (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854023)

> Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites ...

"Hey! That's GNU/Hypocrisy to you, buddy, and don't you forget it!"

I'm with Richard (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854025)

His point of view represents all of the reasons why I left proprietary software and went with Linux.

Ahem, GNU/Linux.

The kernel can be replaced.

The philosophy, which is 100% wholly accurate, cannot.

Re:I'm with Richard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854051)

Sup Richard!

Oh yeah? (3, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854201)

The kernel can be replaced.

then why hasn't Stallman done it? ;)

Re:Oh yeah? (0, Redundant)

Drathus (152223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854359)

The kernel can be replaced.

then why hasn't Stallman done it? ;)
What? Haven't you HURD the news?

(I feel so dirty for typing that.)

Linus is the hypocrite! (0, Troll)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854033)

I submit David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist
And I have the proof

How can one explain the phenomenal global success of one of this country's least talented individuals? There are only three ways.

* Mr. Hasselhoff actually is talented, but this goes unnoticed in his own country.
* Mr. Hasselhoff has sold his soul to Satan in return for global success.
* David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist.

I vote for the latter -- and perhaps, after seeing the facts involved, the rest of the world will agree.

The Facts First, the obvious. Add a little beard and a couple of horns -- David Hasselhoff looks like the Devil, doesn't he? And the letters in his name can be rearranged to spell fad of devil's hash.

What does this mean? Well, Baywatch is David's fad. David is the devil. The Hash is what makes Knight Rider popular in Amsterdam.

(I was actually hoping to make the letters in his name spell out he is of the devil, which would be possible if his middle name was "Ethesis," which it might be. I'm sure his publicist would hide such a middle name if it were true.)

Second -- and most importantly -- David Hasselhoff and his television series were foretold in the Bible. Biblical scholars worldwide may quibble over interpretations, but they all agree on this. For a few telling examples let's skip to the end of the Bible. If any book of the Bible will tell us who the AntiChrist is, it's the Revelation of Saint John, which basically describes the AntiChrist and the Armageddon He causes. I'll just give you the verse, and the current theological interpretation of that verse.

Who is the Beast?
Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns The Beast, of course, is David Hasselhoff. The Heads are His separate television incarnations. Young and the Restless, Revenge of the Cheerleaders, Knight Rider, Terror at London Bridge, Ring of the Musketeers, Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. The ten horns represent His musical releases: Crazy For You, David, David Hasselhoff, Do You Love Me?, Du, Everybody Sunshine, I Believe, Looking For Freedom, Night Lover and Night Rockers. Not only does Mitch The Lifeguard literally "rise out of the sea" on Baywatch, but David's musical career has mostly occurred in Europe, a metaphoric rise to fame from across the sea. Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Of course, this is a reference to his third head: Knight of the Phoenix, the first episode of Knight Rider. In this episode, "Michael Long, a policeman, is shot and left for dead. The shot is deflected by a plate in his head, but ruins his face. He is saved and his face reconstructed. He is reluctant, but agrees to use K.I.T.T. to help the Foundation for Law and Government fight criminals who are 'beyond the reach of the law'. " Knight Rider has been shown in 82 countries. Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. The following blasphemies are actual quotes from David Hasselhoff -- I read these while he was 42 years old.
"I'm good-looking, and I make a lot of money."

"There are many dying children out there whose last wish is to meet me."

"I'm six foot four, an all-American guy, and handsome and talented as well!"

"Before long, I'll have my own channel -- I'll be like Barney."

"(Baywatch) is responsible for a lot of world peace." which the Hoff said at the Bollywood Oscars. Don't believe me? Read the original article!

And here's a blasphemy that came from David's recent (Feb 2004) visit to the Berlin Wall museum. I couldn't have made something this great up by myself. He was upset that the museum didn't spend more time devoted to his personal role in the fall of Communism. You can read more about it here, if you don't believe me.

The Second Beast: Television
Rev 13:11-13And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

The Second Beast, with it's dual antennae, is obviously the Television -- merely a pawn in Hasselhoff's underworldly regime. His stereo speaker (the dragon's voice) spews forth the blasphemy of Baywatch until He has caused all people of the earth to worship and watch Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. How well has he done? Baywatch is now seen by about one billion viewers in 140 countries -- the most watched series ever.

You probably never knew this, but the entire historical purpose of television has been to attract a worldwide audience for the eventual syndication of Baywatch. And how does it accomplish this global distribution? Via satellite - from heaven to the Earth.

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. How does television work? By giving life unto Hasselhoff's image. I'm pretty sure the second part hasn't happened yet.

Lifeguards: Denizens of the Underworld

These biblical revelations will show that the lifeguards on Baywatch are foretold as servants of the Devil. (Need I say who that is again?)
Rev 20:11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them

Rev 20:13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them...
Doesn't this sound like an exact description of what the lifeguards on Baywatch do? They sit on their big white wooden throne, and watch out over the sea -- waiting for a dying person to get cast up. Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek to find death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

One word: CPR
Rev 10:2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, Sounds like a lifeguard, eh? Standing on the beach reading a paperback?

Rev 17:3-5 ...and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

and if that wasn't enough, try Ezekiel 23:17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

The fabled "Whore of Babylon." Well, people have been calling Hollywood "Babylon" since long before I was making web pages. And of all the women in Hollywood, whose wedding night video is the most popular? Hmmm.... Did someone say "Barb Wire?"
Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more Do you know any merchants who invested heavily in the acting career of this "whore of Babylon?" I've seen that "VIP" show of hers, and I'd be weeping if I had spent money on the merchandising rights.
Rev. 18:21 ... a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea,...

Speaking of lifeguards chucking rocks at innocent people, listen to this excerpt from a recent lawsuit against his Hasselness: "while Plaintiff was in the audience of the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Defendandt DAVID HASSELHOFF came on stage and threw a stack of cards depicting himself into the audience, striking Plaintiff in the eye. . . [he] should have known that throwing cards into an audience could cause injury to the audience."
Rev 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. He stands to lose money in this lawsuit -- or maybe even all those dainty and goodly things he bought.

The Number of the Beast
The Bible shows us another way to prove a person is the AntiChrist, namely through numerology. Rev 13:18 says: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

That's a bit cryptic, to be sure. One score is twenty, so threescore is 60, the number of the beast is 666.

Now, the way biblical scholars and numerologists usually convert the names of men into their numbers is through a simple numerical code. Let's assign the 26 letters of the alphabet the numbers 1 through 26. It looks like this:

a 1 i 9 q 17 y 25

b 2 j 10 r 18 z 26

c 3 k 11 s 19

d 4 l 12 t 20

e 5 m 13 u 21

f 6 n 14 v 22

g 7 o 15 w 23

h 8 p 16 x 24

Now, we take the letters from Mr. Hasselhoff's name, assign numbers to them, and calculate his number.

D A V I D H A S S E L H O F F

4 1 22 9 4 8 1 19 19 5 12 8 15 6 6

Now, since thirteen is such a fitting number for evil, let's multiply the first 13 numbers together. The total (65,874,124,800) is approximately 6.6 billion. Tack on the remaining 6's from the end of his name, and you've got yourself the mark of the beast.

Another tactic you could use would be to add the letters in "David" (I think you should get 40) and the letters in Hasselhoff (99) and then multiply them together. 40 x 99 = 3960. Now, 3960 is 660 x 6. And of course, 660 plus 6 is -- again -- the mark of the beast.

Not enough proof for you? Well, let's see what else the winning combination of the Bible and numerology have in store for David.....

As he explains it in his interview, David Hasselhoff first decided to act at the age of 7 when he saw a local production of Rumplestiltskin. His acting debut was in Peter Pan. Knight Rider ended its run in 1986, when Hasselhoff was 32. Baywatch debuted in 1989, when Hasselhoff was 35. His first televised role was as Snapper Foster on the Young and the Restless at the age of 19. If we look at the 37th chapter of the 19th book of the Bible (Psalms) -- at verses 32 and 35, we notice an interesting phenomenon. Take a look:

32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Viewers of Baywatch may have thought they were watching the good leader Mitch Buchannon -- whose main job as head lifeguard is to watch over the righteous babes at the beach, and save them. According to the Bible, he is really trying to slay them. But can we be sure that the show in question is actually Baywatch? Well, count the number of letters in Rumplestiltskin and Peter Pan. 15 and 8, right? Now look at those bible verses again. Find the 15th word of verse 35 - and the 8th word from the end of verse 32. Put them together. 35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. 32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.

Re:Linus is the hypocrite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854301)

this is a lot more interesting then reading about that asshat linus. linux gets way too much front page around here.

As long as (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854047)

RMS doesn't require his type of personal hygene in GPL, I think we're ok, right?

And this is news? (5, Insightful)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854061)

We always knew that RMS is a zealot. I ran into him quite a bit in the 1980s. I could tell that then. While one may have thought it was a bit much then, now is it that radical? Companies are putting rootkits into computers in the name of DRM, sponsoring bills that allow copyright holders to hack into your system and destroy YOUR system with immunity -- if they think that you may have violated their copyright.

Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?

Re:And this is news? (0, Flamebait)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854175)

Personally speaking, I think that Stallman has been getting worse about it as time goes on.

Re:And this is news? (5, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854203)

Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?
Yes.

Don't try to out-badguy corporate scum. They have budgets for it, you don't. Extending a software license to limit hardware manufacturers is ridiculous.

Nevermind the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the RIAA and MPAA, will accomplish nothing vis a vis their war on piracy, and so I'm confused as to exactly why the hell you brought them up.

Re:And this is news? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854307)

Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?

It extends itself to things it should not. The bad behavior of others is completely irrelevant to this.

Re:And this is news? (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854319)

Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?

Good question, but one other pops up in response to it:

Is exigency a good enough rationale for permanent change?

In something more closely approaching English, I guess what comes to mind is this... If they're just doing it to defeat a present problem, then what of the future?

Between road-to-hell pavement and the endless measure/countermeasure/measure games that companies (and malware writers) play, there is a danger of two things: First, that the GPL becomes a convoluted mess over large values of time in an attempt to patch every little hole that springs forth; that would make the thing impractical for programming use. Second, that something really awful gets discovered by a creative but perfectly legal interpretation of the changes.

In all seriousness, I doubt that either would happen w/ GPLv3, but IMHO, we really shouldn't get into the habit of this...

I grok the moral underpinnings, and appreciate the intentions, but there's still a nagging feeling at the back of my head that says if any more massive changes are made, then we'll be dancing right on the line that separates practicality from dogma. I believe Torvalds thinks that GPLv3 has already crossed it. Others prolly think that the line is still miles away (in either direction, if we count MSFT bigwigs).

Perhaps someone needs to define that point where codifying philosophy will only bring diminishing returns? Like I said, IMHO I don't think we're quite there yet, but that the next iteration may well take us right past it.

/P

Ah, hyposcrisy, yes. (4, Funny)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854063)

Yeah, I hate it when people hypocritically force their ideas of free software on others. Thank goodness Linus is here to save us from that!

Damn! (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854067)

Say what you will about Torvalds or his stance on GPLv3, but one thing is unequivocal... the man doesn't hide behind corporatespeak. He just comes out and says it like he believes it is.

If only CEO types would start doing that (w/o hiding behind an alias, that is)...

...well, a guy can dream, can't he?

/P

RMS's anti-natalism (1)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854081)

Is it because Torvalds disagrees with Stallman's anti-natalism [art.net] stance, and his pledge not to reproduce?

-Don

Re:RMS's anti-natalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854231)

RMS is a wild eyed leftist. So, no real surprise that he's anti-baby. San Francisco is, after all, a city where people have more dogs than children.

Re:RMS's anti-natalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854321)

Being anti-natalistic doesn't mean you're anti-baby. It means you're against people becoming parents for bad reasons (like social and religious pressures). Overpopulation makes life very bad for babies.

Re:RMS's anti-natalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854399)

What does San Francisco have to do with RMS, moron? He has always lived on the other side of the country, in Boston. Why are you so ignorant? Have you been watching Fox News and listening to Bill O'Reilly? Fox News listeners are much less educated and believe many more lies that simply aren't true, than any other news network. It's a fact!

Re:RMS's anti-natalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854267)

Finally an issue I can agree with! I don't thing Stallman should reproduce, either.

Re:RMS's anti-natalism (2, Insightful)

solcott (1002711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854403)

What the crap!

Do you people seriously believe anti-natalism is why Stallman has no children?

I mean, I'm no stud-master myself but have you people SEEN [google.com] that guy?

Attention (5, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854083)

Could everybody get back to coding and kiss politics goodbye? WTF is everybody doing these days? It seems like every single programming in the world is now a politician... Long gone are the days where programming was considered a noble art of logics and things were so uncomplicated... Humans are a strange animal, indeed... Instead of producing more, we must complicate things and waste our valuable with egoistic intrigues, politics, strange licence deals, and... oh well...

Re:Attention (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854223)

That's the world we live in. If everybody would be producing for the greater good, we wouldn't need the GPL. Unfortunately there are people who climb the mountain with the help of others and then kick down when the helpers want to catch up. Let's hear your proposal for fixing that.

Correction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854085)

The headline should not say "Linux", but rather "GNU/Linux".

Re:Correction (1)

Tharkban (877186) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854221)

Actually, that's the point. Linus didn't create GNU/linux he created linux (the kernel).

Who cares? (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854087)

Who cares what Linus has to say? It's readily apparent that the inevitable consequence will be a shift away from Linux kernel under GPL2 towards Solaris under GPL3.

Linus is a tool. He goes on about how he picked his methodology because of efficiencies, not morality. But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license. If they just wanted open-code efficiency, they would have went with the tried and true BSD license.

Linus doesn't even write code anymore. If not for the perceived morality of having a kernel under the GPL, and the droves of developers who participated for that very reason, he would be a complete non-entity.

Easy enough to mouth off at this point.

Re:Who cares? (1)

robgig1088 (1043362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854161)

Actually, I believe he still contributes to the kernel, though the article where I read this could be dated.

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854181)

But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license.

    In the 90's, I think most of the people worked on Linux due to the unclear legal status of BSD, not some funny "morality" issue.

    Without the legal issues, FreeBSD would probably be where Linux is now, perhaps even further, and Linux would never have taken off like that - it would have stayed as a little practice project for the Helsinki University. However, now Linux just has so much momentum with it that it's the focus of most open source efforts.

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854435)

Well, the legal issues (e.g. the ATT/SysV v. BSD lawsuits) sure... but there was also the little matter of dealing with a rather large cloud of interpersonal troubles that made things ugly, with most of it centered squarely over UC Berkeley. That, and (as MSFT later proved head-on w/ their TCP/IP implementations), the classic BSD license really doesn't protect against theft and proprietary lock-down of improvements. Like most folks, if I want to contribute stuff freely, I'd really like to see any improvements to be incorporated and shared. BSD relies on only honor and a mandatory attribution for that).

Not flaming, trolling, or otherwise... but a sense of perspective is kinda needed as to why BSD didn't catch on as fast or as big.

(OTOH, the BSD license made it easy to incorporate a LOT of stuff from it into Linux, and the results converted to GPL licensing...)

/P

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854195)

Agreed. Who cares what he has to say? The world & free software will tick along quick happily and just as well without him. I'm getting tired of his rants.

Re:Who cares? (0)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854205)

Well, he does have an incredible amount of influence and has shown to have made good judgements in the past.

That said, I largely agree with him. The anti-tivoization provisions and anti-DRM is way too much personal ethics where there should only be free software. v4 I expect to have more personal ethics like 'cannot be used by the military' or 'cannot be used by republicans.' Or maybe just 'cannot dual boot windoze.' Who knows what personal ethical stand is popular with geeks at the time of the next drafting. This is a slipperly slope.

Re:Who cares? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854217)

Buy a license then. Then you can do whatever you want with it, right?

Re:Who cares? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854341)

has shown to have made good judgements in the past.
Are you talking about some different Linus to the rest of us?

One word: Bitkeeper.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854251)

Linus doesn't even write code anymore. If not for the perceived morality of having a kernel under the GPL, and the droves of developers who participated for that very reason, he would be a complete non-entity.

RMS stopped writing code years ago... is he a "tool" who is just "mouthing off", too?

It's readily apparent that the inevitable consequence will be a shift away from Linux kernel under GPL2 towards Solaris under GPL3.

Fuck me, that's funny. Listen, I like Solaris, but I don't think any such thing is happening any time soon, let alone is a "readily apparent" "inevitable consequence".

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854279)

"Linus doesn't even write code anymore."

right dumbshit, thats why we wrote a new version system for source control on the kernel project.

Re:Who cares? (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854383)

No, you wrote a new system because NIH affects open source projects as much as it affects closed development.

There was a choice of about two dozen distributed revision control systems around at the time that Linus decided to go with his mate's proprietary product, Bitkeeper, and there was about twice as many as that after that fiasco came to the head that everyone said it would but Linus was incapable of seeing. So instead of just pickup one of these many systems and improve it as necessary, he declared that he knew better and made the monstrosity that is git. Meanwhile, everyone else is using Darcs or Bazaar.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854311)

But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license.

How is that relevant? Linus is very consistent in his views. Allowing ppl with different motivations to work on software doesn't mean that he believes what they do and it isn't necessary that everyone believes the same thing when abiding by a legal license.

Nice job proving his point (0)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854313)

This is precisely what he is talking about with the claim of "religious fanatics". He says something you don't like and you write him off as a "tool" and essentially call him irrelevant. That, my friend, is fanaticism. The man clearly has skills, clearly has influence, and thus perhaps it is worth listening to his opinion on things related to Linux since he did, after all, create it. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but to dismiss him as a "tool" because you don't like what he has to say is fanaticism at its best.

One of the things Linus seems to realise is that you've got to be a bit pragmatic. A pure "everything is open, information cannot be controlled" philosophy might be cool and all, but it turns out not to work in the real actual world. It is similar to communism: As a philosophy, it is rather wonderful in its simplicity summed up in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," statement. However it turns out that as nice an idea as it might be, it doesn't work in the real world when you try to have real humans implement it.

Linus seems to understand that the same is true of software and that if you want to grow and influence things you cannot be an ideological zealot. That is a pretty reasonable stance and while you certainly don't have to agree with it, if you don't at least respect and listen to it you are being just such a zealot.

Re:Who cares? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854373)

But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license. If they just wanted open-code efficiency, they would have went with the tried and true BSD license.

That's not necessarily true. A decent portion of Linux (especially the kernel) has come from some kind of corporate sponsorship. Sometimes companies donate existing code, sometimes they donate funds to projects, and sometimes they hire programmers to work on portions of the projects they want. A lot of companies might prefer the GPL to BSD precisely because they don't want competitors to be able to take their code, make improvements, and keep the improvement to themselves.

In case I'm not being clear, imagine there was no Linux, but Redhat and Novell were still writing operating systems. Redhat is just starting out and really wants to make use of the FOSS community, and so they want to release some of their work to under an open-source license. If they pick a BSD license, Novell then has the legal right to take all of Redhat's hard work, put it into SuSE, and without doing any work on their own, start at the same level as Redhat. Then, Redhat had to pay for development, while Novell didn't. From there, Novell can write their own improvements, sell the result, and never share the improved code with Redhat. With the same amount of investment, Novell would be able to create a superior product by riding off of Redhat's work.

Alternatively, Redhat could choose the GPL. In that case, Novell is still allowed to make use of Redhat's code, but once they do, Redhat is also allowed to make use of SuSE's code. Besides possibly gaining more developer support, it also diminishes the ability of other companies to completely screw Redhat over.

Maybe that's a bad example because it's so theoretical, but I think I have a good point in there somewhere. I think part of the reason the GPL is so successful really is because of its efficiency at forcing people to cooperate and to be generous, and not because of its morality. Companies like Redhat, Novell, Sun, and IBM have made substantially donations of code, workforce, and money, and I don't believe that these donations were driven by morality.

But there's a problem with his views (2, Insightful)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854097)

Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality

The problem being laws are in many ways a kind of moral consensus.

If I should ever make as big a contribution as he has I'll get to be just as opinionated and right. For now, the reasoning works out just fine in his head and I can see his point. BTW hopefully this quote wasn't taken out of context.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

New Joke (3, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854101)

Q: Why don't devolopers write their own software liscenses ?

A: Because then they'd have to write their own software.

Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states.. (3, Interesting)

chrb (1083577) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854105)

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate 'morality' with 'legality,' "

Every legal system enforces ideas of morality. Why is murder wrong? Why do countries restrict hate speech? Why can't you have sex with your sister? These are all moral concepts enforced through legality.

Maybe Linus is having a bad day. And what exactly does he mean by:

"I think it is okay to control people's hardware, I do it myself"

Does Linus sell have a sideline selling PCs? And he uses some DRM to stop users modifying the software he supplies? What?

Incest? (1, Offtopic)

kahei (466208) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854247)


How is having sex with your sister morally wrong? Sure, it's socially and biologically unwise, which is why it tends to be prohibited in most cultures, but it's hard to say how it's *morally* wrong assuming you both want to do it and use a condom.

Sounds to me like the parent post is confusing legality with morality!

Re:Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states (1)

slackmaster2000 (820067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854333)

The key word in his comment is "equate."

Morality is the basis of legality, and thus they are not equal concepts. Using the law to force a moral position can be a very dangerous thing, and his use of religious analogy is spot on.

Funny story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854117)

I was in Beaverton, Oregon on business about a year ago. I was meeting some IBM reps for a demo of system z. Anyway, I was a little early, so I stopped at a McDonalds. I was standing in line and I thought the guy in front of me looked familiar. It was Linus. He ordered a royal with cheese and some fries. He ordered it to go too. I never could figure out why he didn't just go through the drive through.

Re:Funny story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854167)

I don't believe your tale of lies.

shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854255)

shut up, peasant.

Context please? (4, Insightful)

MenTaLguY (5483) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854125)

Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes in context.

Without seeing the context, in general I would say the core disagreement between RMS and Linus (setting aside the frivolous GNU/Linux naming thing) lies in their respective notions about morality: RMS believes it to be essentially objective, whereas Linus considers it a subjective concern. This seems to be another manifestation of that disagreement.

Re:Context please? (2, Insightful)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854271)

Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes in context.
Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes... period. The article claims this was posted on a public list on 20th June, three or four weeks ago... but something tells me that if he'd posted this to the kernel list, it'd have been on Slashdot (and other sources) rather earlier than this. (No, I don't read LKLM myself.)

Anyone got a link to a list archive somewhere?

How does this apply to US politics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854127)

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.'"

I guess the Linus is not a big fan of the Republicans.

Of course this is flame-bait, but I couldn't resist, and it happens to be true....

How convenient, just ignore morality (1)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854163)

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality,


Did he really say that? I can't believe it. Take away the law as a measure for morality and you take away the measuring stick for trust. Take away the measuring stick for trust and you take away society/civilization/yeseveniPhones.

As a Linux user, morality is always on my mind. In fact the GPL that the Kernel uses is grounded in morality. What gives?

Sigh...I guess he's trying to say "...equate *this kind of hypocritical* morality with legality"...in which case I might agree.

FSF lieks xbocs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854179)

i play xbox with my brother sometimes... its very cool... my brother is 30 years old hes pretty smart... he has 45 iq its the same as heis shoe size.. pretu good considaring 100 is full.... nentendo is cool but wii is beter... i am masetr chief from halo... bcz when i played halo for the second time i knew what was going too happen befor eit happend... so im takeru... its pretty cooll... sonic is cool... i dont like tails though bcz hes sonics girlfrend... i want2 be sonics girlfrend.... sonic is so fast and handsome its increddibnle... sometimes... together... my mom and dad are brother and sister... its prety cool i gess... i herd its prety normal in america.... they love eachother like a father and daugher... theyr so cute together... together... sometimes... xbox... my brother is in wheel chair... but hes cool because hes smart... yea... the boy in the basements said he isnt smart and he say bad thing about my dad... but its no mater... he is chained up... in basement... together... xbox... yea... maybe.

Linus is a troll (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854191)

But what he has a lot of good views and ideas on things. In this case, though, he's being typically difficult. Instead of saying nothing at all on the subject, or just simply stating that the kernel will not be moving to GPLv3, he instead does a ridiculous attack on RMS.

Torvalds is brilliant, and we and RMS all owe him for everything he's done with Linux and in promoting free software (maybe a happy byproduct). But he can still be egotistical and petty. This is life I guess. But it's exactly these kind of statements that are going to worry PHBs and prevent Linux adoption just as much as FUD concerning GPLv3.

I think everyone is going to be watching the Samba team's adoption of GPLv3. At a certain point, it's irrelevant what license the kernel uses and what licenses Torvalds likes personally. Actually it's irrelevant now.

Re:Linus is a troll (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854433)

Instead of saying nothing at all on the subject, or just simply stating that the kernel will not be moving to GPLv3, he instead does a ridiculous attack on RMS.

So if you don't agree with something or with the motives of someone, you shouldn't say anything but instead remain silent? Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree.

The old saying that silence equals conscent comes to mind.

DRM is crucial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854229)

The articles author states this as fact:

"DRM is crucial to TiVo's ability to strike deals with content partners concerned about illegal duplication of their products."

DRM is not crucial for anything. Watermarking is probably more effective and less harmful than DRM.

I think the author is taking the coments of Linus out of context.

Tivoization (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854233)

At the heart of the GPL is the idea that this work is free - if you're going to add on to this work and then redistribute it, you must make your work free as well. The rest is just details that build on that idea.

The new Tivoization rules are just another extension of this idea. Did the people who wrote the GPL software used in the Tivo desire for it to be used that way? Did they envision DRM and locked down hardware? Of course not. Tivo simply found holes in GPLv2 that let them get away with it, and so the GPLv3 is coming along to try and close up those holes.

In the spirit of the decentralized nature of OSS (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854239)

...who cares what one person has to say?

Re:In the spirit of the decentralized nature of OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854343)

When the niggers raped the women I remained silent because I wasn't a woman
When the niggers raped the children I remained silent because I wasn't a child
When the niggers raped the other niggers I remained silent because I wasn't a nigger
When the niggers raped me, I couldn't speak because there were 4 black cocks in my mouth.

Ow, my ass hurts and my jaw is broken.

Here's the post the article is based on.. (4, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854245)

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 [lkml.org]

Go the rant Linus.

I'm with Stallman on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854249)

The clincher was when Linus came out with:

I think it is okay to control people's hardware, I do it myself.

Oh noes! Linus has pwned my box!!1! Sorry Linus, you are now officially one of Them.

RTFA... (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854263)

...and also the comments on it. In particular the one that points to http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 [lkml.org] , which shows that the article uses selective quotations to make it overly inflammatory.

Article needs to be modded "troll"...

Linus the engineer and Linus the idiot (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854275)

He's a brilliant engineer, a witty person, but he's an idiot when it comes to freedom related issues and he displays what basically amounts to ignorance about the subject. GPLv3 is nothing more than GPLv2 with some loopholes closed. I often wonder how Linus ended up with GPLv2 in the first place?

The contrast is striking because as an engineer he's brilliant, but he's absolutely lost as a long term thinker in relation to freedoms and morality. He'd make the worst leader in those matters.

Re:Linus the engineer and Linus the idiot (1)

wjeff (161644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854349)

You don't give him enough credit, I think he undertands freedom and morality a lot better than Stallman, et al.

Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854295)

I am with Linus on this one.
Linus has done more to FOSS than any single individual has or will ever do.
It just boggles my mind why anyone would disagree with him.

Logic of freedom.... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854299)

I have the freedom to kill you, but you do not have the freedom to do so to me....

Its a double standard,

Now open source software should have the right to limit what you do with the software I write but I am not limited by it.

If I distribute open source software I should be able to sue the users of it??? Isn't that entrapment?

MS seems to have plenty of time to claim and promote that they have IP illegally in linux. And since Linus feels that MS should have the right to sue Linus.... well he asked for it then... And now we know who is in teh position to force MS to cough up the evidence of their claims...

I have yet to hear a good arguement against the GPLv3 that is not a double standard.

Freedom does not mean you have the right to take it away from another, or to do anything that imposes upon the freedom of another.

So what do you do when someone claims open source is not free because they are not allowed to use it and then impose restriction on teh freedoms of others with it?

The non-sequiturof this argument has been used extensively. Perhaps if the wrong doers use it enough they can convince themselves its fair. Oh wait, they already have.

And this is why we have different licensings...... Linus can continue to use GPLv2 and it doesn't mean others have to.

And if someone wants to GPLv3 the Kernal.....they can fork it too. right? Or has linus been only pretending to adhear to the GPL?

Author has taken Linus quotes out of Context (1)

delire (809063) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854305)

See for yourself [lkml.org] .

Nothing more to see here than a ripe example of journalistic firestarting. It worked on me - here I am writing this..

Re:Author has taken Linus quotes out of Context (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854427)

I agree that the article was typical sensationalistic journalism...

Nevertheless, the essence of it is that Linus still doesn't get it - he doesn't believe (even at the late date on which he said this, June 20th) that GPL3 promotes freedom better than GPL2.

On this issue Linus is starting to sound like Microsoft when they talk about "Shared Source," a la, "Hey, what do you mean this pale imitation of something good isn't sufficient? We're showing you the source - isn't that good enough for you???"

Um, no, buddy, not if you're going to encumber it in *other* ways. For Microsoft, it's an NDA, or whatever restrictions they allow you to "see" the source. For Tivo, the encumbrance is Tivoization. End of the day, though, "Shared Source" is not free. And neither is GPL2, not fully, if the code can still be shackled.

But GPL2 is not sufficient. Its loopholes have been exploited.

What Linus really said (5, Informative)

delire (809063) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854347)

Was..

I don't think it's hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That's a fine choice, it's just not *mine*.

. What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of "freedom", while you're at the same time trying to argue that I don't have the "freedom" to make my own choice.

See? THAT is hypocritical.
and..

In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I'm their legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about "legality", this is about "morality". The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself.
The rest here [lkml.org] .

Hurd (3, Funny)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854379)

Maybe this will push the development of GNU Hurd [wikipedia.org]

If Linus were smart (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854429)

WHO GIVES A FUCK?
 
linux is a shit os used by a bunch of fags and cunts. linus sucks turds. no one in their right mind uses this dumb faggot bullshit.
 
it's the biggest half ass unix rip off ever. maybe if linus stole more ideas he'd actually have something worth listening to him about but the truth is that linux sucks. if you use it you're a dick smoking faggot.
 
you may as well let steve jobs fuck you in the ass, fagbag.
 
abandon linux now or get the aids from your faggot sex.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>