Greg KH wrote:
So we wrote up a little whitepaper about it. If you wish to discuss any
of the specific points in that paper, please feel free to do so.
Quote from "Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 "
(http://lwn.net/Articles/200422)
"... This in turn is brought about by a peculiar freedom enshrined in
the developer contract as represented by GPLv2, namely the freedom from
binding the end use of the project ..."
I find tivoization violating this freedom.
"Finally, we recognise that defining what constitutes DRM abuse is
essentially political in nature and as such, while we may argue
forcefully for our political opinions, we may not suborn or coerce
others to go along with them. Therefore, attempting to write these type
of restrictions into GPLv3 and then relicense all FSF code under it is
tantamount to co-opting the work of all prior contributions into the
service of the FSF's political ends, and thus represents a fundamental
violation of the trust outlined in section 4."
Do you deliberately misrepresent the purpose of existence of FSF? It's
been created from the very beginning with the purpose of defending
certain moral values, expediency having lower priority. Violation of
trust may occur only if you claim GPLv3 defends different moral values
then GPLv2. Is that what you claim?
And then, living on the Balkan Peninsula, I find the use of the term
"Balkanisation" racist[1] and insulting.
In the end, I think you could have simply stated that you defend
different set of values and GPLv3 is not compatible with your set of
values (a.k.a. political views), instead of trying to represent yourself
as "apolitical" and trying to undermine the public's trust in FSF.
~velco
[1] you may substitute "racist" for any other word denoting "people of
different ethnicity"
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
