Linux kernel: GPLv2 or GPLv3 poll

[deanlinkous]

Found this at another forum...


Since we have heard from all the big guns about GPLv3 I thought a poll for Joe User to have a say about it would be cool. So here it is. Assuming that GPL v3 is possible of course! Feel free to post the link anywhere you wish.

http://poll.pollcode.com/vR

[morgoth]

I voted GPL v3. I recently had a nastyish argument about this on Groklaw, which resulted in me calling Linus a corporate shill. This seemed to upset a fair number of Groklaw regulars, who bitched and complained and called me a troll etc. This resulted in PJ removing my shill comments against my wishes, and in turn I told her to shove my Groklaw account in a very polite way.

Basically, my viewpoint is developers love GPL v2, but do not like GPL v3. I liken this problem to that of donating to a charity. GPL coders donate their time to the FSF cause, by donating code. Similarly, a person donating to a charity donates money to that cause. A person donating money to a charity would not dream of demanding how that charity uses the money etc. So, I find it offensive that GPL developers that are pro GPL v2 demand how the software that they've donated to the FSF cause, because of their own wants, rather than consider the overall safety of the code. It really makes me angry - 5% if Linux users, or less are coders, the rest are users. Basically, many developers are saying that their rights trump the rights of the majority (the users).

I say that if they're that damn worried about their developer rights, then they should piss off and develop and release their code under the BSD license, which has always been more popular with developers. The GPL is for everyone, including the users. Since I believe in a majority rules system, and the majority is users (vs developers), then it makes sense that developers rights should NEVER trump the users rights. Those developers refusing to release kernel code under the GPL v3 are what I consider traitors to the 'cause'.

There are obvious reasons for this all, and that's that the majority of Linux kernel coders are hired by corporations. That places their interests in serving their employers, and not the people. This is part of the reason why the 2.6 kernel has not impressed me one iota. Of course, I also had arguments about the meaning of corporation, with many of the Groklaw idiots coming up with some very weird interpretations of the word. The average person associates the word corporation with business and that is the context that I used it as. It was so odd to see many people arguing against this common usage of the word. But then, many of them were Americans, and that explains a lot I think.

In the end, I have lost all respect for Linus, and I have no respect for the Linux kernel developers. My thoughts on the 2.6 kernel are that all of the changes brought about by Linus & Andrew [Morton] and others are bad for the average users. They now care more about the corporations whose interests they serve, than the average person using Linux, and in plain language that means:

they sold out

This is, of course, my personal opinion. If the Linux kernel stays at GPL v2, I sincerely hope that the kernel developers are sued by Microsoft and others for patent infringements. It will serve them right. I will have no pity for them.

Dave

[deanlinkous]

Well, I still feel like you are a little over the top BUT I lean about the same way as well and pretty much agree with you. I probably would not go quite so far but in general I think linux may not be what it once was or I was always mistaken about what it was.

Oh, and I am american - try not to lump us all together please. ;)

[danieldk]

Geeh, what a resprect for years of work that the kernel developers have done. If they were really after the money, they could have cashed out in plenty of other ways.

Anyway. I give slight preference for the GPLv3, but both are fine for me. Besides that, it is their code, so it's up to them to decide.

[deanlinkous]

Some links...

A older comparison of GPLv2 and GPLv3
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060118155841115

draft 1 of GPLv3 compared to draft 2 of GPL v3
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/diff-draft1-draft2.en.html

[deanlinkous]

Geeh, what a resprect for years of work that the kernel developers have done. If they were really after the money, they could have cashed out in plenty of other ways.

Anyway. I give slight preference for the GPLv3, but both are fine for me. Besides that, it is their code, so it's up to them to decide.

I certainly have respect for all the work they do/did!

While I realize it is up to them to decide, shouldn't they WANT to hear what we have to say about it. Shouldn't we as users at least get to say what we would prefer? Are we being forgotten? Would linux have gotten anywhere without users? Certainly we do not have a say in what code does what but since v3 affects us as users, our input is important IMO.

Is it a linux community or just a linux dev community?

[morgoth]

That's exactly my viewpoint Dean. With the current Linux kernel developers saying "stuff you" to the users/community, that's as bad as proprietary software. Why? Proprietary software usually ignores what the users want. The current Linux kernel developers are no better imho. If that's their attitude, I have no time or respect for them, Linus included.

Daniel - their code is worthless if the users don't use it. GPL v2 is OK, but it does lag behind in certain areas regarding DRM and software patents. If you are against software patents, then GPL v3 is a no brainer. Period. As to DRM, Linus has made it clear in the past that DRM is coming to the Linux kernel. Again, this satisfies corporate interest, rather than the users.

It is becoming more and more clearer to me that the Linux kernel has become tainted, it is no longer the free kernel that it was, or that Linus originally envisaged. Originally, anyone was welcome to contribute code to the kernel, these days less than 100 people help develop the kernel, nearly all of them employed by business that seeks to alter the kernel and the way that it is developed, to the detriment of the average user imho.

It looks like GNU/Hurd is really the only 'user' kernel these days, and it's still true to its original beginnings. It's a pity that RMS is a difficult person to work with, and that the Linux kernel took off and siphoned off any potential kernel hackers on the GNU/Hurd project. For all practical purposes, the GNU/Hurd is still very immature and in a non usable format.

Dave

[AndreL]

They always made it clear that the 2.6 kernel was going to be "corporate" oriented... but they also said (Linus, anyway) that the 2.8 serie was going to be more "user" oriented.

I'm still waiting for that one...

[danieldk]

What a nonsense David. If you are not happy with it, you can fork the Linux kernel *any day*. That is your right, because it is free software. The GPLv3 doesn't automatically invalidate GPLv2.

And as far as I can see, it is easier to contribute to 2.6.x kernels. Why? Because there are branches like AM's -mm branch where more destructive work can take place. What changed is that a bit more of the stabilization is moved to the distributors. Which seems ok to me now, because all major distributors (except for Slackware) were providing their own customized kernels anyway.