Intr-un urias thread "Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3" care incepe aici, Linus Torvalds s-a lasat "luat de ape" in cateva randuri.
(1) «I think the whole "the kernel developers misunderstand the license" crap that the FSF was saying (several times) was very trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by pointing to *another* part of the license. [..]
And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I "misunderstood" the "spirit of the GPL".
Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the license.
I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't think so. [...]
The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.
I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies) can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair.
The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_ confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do.
[...] I respect peoples freedoms too. I just disagree with the FSF on what that slippery word means.
You're acting like some Alice-in-Wonderland character, saying that your definition of words is the only one that matter. And that others are "confused". Read up on your humpty-dumpty some day.
I'm damn fed up with the FSF being the "protector of freedoms", and also feeling that they can define what those freedoms mean.
The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what the words mean to suit their agenda.
Linus»
Din succesiunea urmatoare de mesaje, am mai remarcat:
(2) «> If you really believe that then why didn't you choose a BSD license for Linux?
Because I think the GPLv2 is a great license.
And I don't like the FSF's radical world-view, but I am able to separate the license (the GPLv2) from the author and source of the license (rms and the FSF).
Why do people always confuse the two? The GPLv2 stands on its own. The fact that I disagree with the FSF on how to act has _zero_ relevance for my choice of license.
The BSD license, as far as I'm concerned, is _horrible_ for any project I would use. I have actually released code under it, but never a "project". I've given some code of mine that I don't care about that much to the BSD projects, just because I didn't think that code really mattered, and I thought it would be stupid and small-minded not to let the BSD's use it.
But for a project I actually care about, I would never choose the BSD license. The license doesn't encode my fundamental beliefs of "fairness". I think the BSD license encourages a "everybody for himself" mentality, and doesn't encourage people to work together, and to merge.
Let me put this in source management terms, since I've also been working on a source control management project for the last few years: the BSD license encourages "branching", but the fact is, branching is not really all that interesting. What's interesting is "merging": the branching is just a largely irrelevant prerequisite to be able to merge.
The GPLv2 encourages *merging*. Again, the right to "branch" needs to be there in order for merges to be possible, but the right to branch is actually much less important than the right to "merge".
See?
So I'm a *big* believer in the GPLv2. I think the GPLv2 is an almost perfect license. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with the FSF on everything else.
[...] I think that the BSD license is wrong for me. Does that mean that people who choose the BSD license are wrong to do so? No. For *them* the choices that the BSD license makes may be the right ones!
[...] And the GPLv2 is _perfect_ for that.
And the GPLv3 is horrible.
And you know what? YOU can choose the GPLv3 for your projects. I'm not saying anything else. I'm saying that no, I was _not_ confused when I chose the GPLv2. I thought it was a good license 15 years ago. I thought it was a good license 10 years ago. I thought it was a good license five years ago. And I think it's a good license today.
Because it fundamnetally does what I think is fair. In a way that the GPLv3 DOES NOT.
Linus»
O mentiune personala: o fi incurajand BSD "branching"-ul si GPL-ul "merge"-ul, dar ce OS are 500 de flavors, si care are numai vreo 5? (E cam pe dos.)
