[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Torvalds "fed up" with the FSF

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Torvalds "fed up" with the FSF
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:32:19 +0200

Torvalds "fed up" with the FSF
By: Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier

On Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing
the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center (SLFC)
chairman Eben Moglen to issue a "renewed invitation" yesterday to kernel
developers to participate in the GPLv3 process. Linus Torvalds responded
to Moglen's statement by saying that his position on the license is
clear and that he's "fed up" with the FSF.

Moglen, in his posting, said:

    In view of recent statements by developers of the Linux kernel, and
the response by the Free Software Foundation, I would like to offer my
personal views as the chief mediator in the GPLv3 process.

    To begin with, I welcome the current expressions of opinion by
kernel developers. As I have repeatedly said in private communications,
and will now say again publicly, I will gladly take any steps possible
to include the kernel developers in the ongoing discussion process. I
invite them to represent themselves in any way they choose, and pledge
to work with them to create, even at this late date, a form of
participation in the deliberations about GPLv3 that would reflect their
preferred means of work, and be appropriate to their position in the
community of developers.

I asked Torvalds, via email, if he was likely to take Moglen up on his
offer to participate in the process. Torvalds' reply, which was cc:ed to
Moglen, was less than enthusiastic:

    I wonder why everybody but the FSF seems to know my email address,
but the FSF can't find it.

    If it has an anti-Tivo clause, I think it's bad. I've tried to
explain it to some people (the freedom of the _project_ is much too
important to let any license clause limit how you can use it), but when
other people did that, the FSF just explained how they had mis-used the
word "use".

    But I'm so fed up with the FSF right now that I'm not in the least
interested. There's no way in _hell_ they can claim that they don't know
my standpoint, so what are they even asking for?

The FSF's response to the kernel developers on Monday took issue with
the characterization of the anti-DRM clause as an "end use restriction,"
but didn't address the developers' other arguments about the anti-DRM
clauses in the GPLv3 draft.

In fact, the FSF's response largely failed to address any of the
concerns put forward by kernel developers and instead focused on
correcting a few minor factual errors in the position paper. The FSF has
declined several requests for interviews to answer questions about the
developers' position paper. Moglen, through the SFLC, has also declined
to answer any questions.

Follow the link for more...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]