GPLv3 & GNU/Linux, or maybe Linux/GNU ???

[Jamon Camisso]

>From http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000111 with my comments interspersed:

Richard Stallman

"Now, what we didn't have 15 years ago was the threat of making the
program effectively non free by technical restrictions placed around it.
That's what Tivoisation is. Tivoisation means taking a free program and
distributing a binary of it, and also providing the source, because the
GPL requires that. But when the user changes the source code and
compiles it and then tries to install the changed program he discovers
that that's impossible because the machine is designed not to let him."

He makes a very important point here. Stallman is our ideologue, like it
or not, and though he may approach things in an overly rigid and openly
dogmatic manner, his work (GPL, FSF, GNU etc.) is crucially important;
if for no other reason than that it provides a central point of focus
around which to debate and define one's own position, be it one of
agreement or diametrically opposed. One must not forget one's origins,
nor should one discount the relevance of GPLv2 or 3 based on a
disagreement with personalities or philosophies.

Linus Torvalds

"In some ways, I can even hope that it clears the air for all the stupid
tensions to just admit that there are differences of opinion, and that
the FSF might even just stop using the name "GNU/Linux", finally
admitting that Linux never was a GNU project in the first place."

Straight from the horse's mouth folks, it doesn't get much clearer than
that.

Alan Cox

"There is no such thing as GNU/Linux. For an article like this it's
really important to understand and clarify that (and from the US view
also as a trademark matter).

I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called
"GNU/Linux". It's a bit of spin-doctoring by the FSF to try and link
themselves to Linux. Normally its just one of those things they do and
people sigh about, but when you look at the licensing debate the
distinction is vital. (its also increasingly true that FSF owned code is
a minority part of Linux)"

I wonder what the largest majority of code is in a GNU&&||Linux system.
Perhaps Debian has it right calling it GNU/Linux after all, not
necessarily calling it GNU or Linux, but highlighting the combination of
the two. After all is said and done, any major distribution is
indisputably a combination of those two (and other) constituent parts.

Greg Kroah-Hartman

"So it seems that the FSF is only targeting the Tivo issue, which us
kernel developers have explicitly stated in public that it is acceptable
to use _our_ code in this manner. So they are now trying to tell another
group (us) what we should do to our code.

As the FSF has no contribution in the Linux kernel, and has nothing to
do with it in general, we kernel developers are now a bit upset that
someone else is trying to tell us that something we explicitly stated
was acceptable use of our code, is suddenly bad and wrong."

Does seem a sort of roundabout way of getting a GPLv3 licensed kernel or
tool onto my computer vs. a Tivo box. Granted many use something like
MythTV, but if we just stopped watching tv altogether or downloaded HDTV
torrents of said show, problem solved, albeit in a flippant and
non-legal manner :)

Andrew Morton

"In fact this points at a broad problem with the existing process: I'm
sure that a large majority of the people who actually write this code
haven't made their opinions felt to the FSF. Yet the FSF presumes to
speak for them, and proposes to use their work as ammunition in the
FSF's campaigns."

The phrase "if you permit it you promote it" comes to mind.

Dave Miller

"For the kernel I'm pretty sure things will go on as they have before."

As Greg Kroah-Hartman said, the kernel developers have no problem with
Tivo devices using a Linux kernel with or without said device allowing
changes to the code.

Richard Stallman

"Calling the combined system GNU/Linux is right because it gives the GNU
Project credit for its work, but there are things more important than
credit -- your freedom, for example. It is no accident that the GNU GPL
existed before Linux was begun. We wrote the GPL to protect the freedom
of the users of GNU, and we are revising it today so that it will
protect against newer technical methods of denying that freedom. When
you think about GPL issues, this is the background for them.

If the developers of Linux disagree with that goal, they are entitled to
their views. They are entitled to cite their important work--Linux, the
kernel--to be listened to more, but they should respect our right to
cite the GNU system in the same way."

Who can argue with that sentiment? Seems the FSF is just trying to keep
up with the times and stay relevant, while also trying to create a
framework that will allow Free/Open Source Software to stay that way
indefinitely. Admirable, and I think, kernel issues aside, crucially
important to protect our freedom to do what we want with our various
bits and pieces of hardware.

How about Linux/GNU then?

Comments, flames, DDoSes welcome (http://www.jamonation.com/node/466).
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists