Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

Linus Torvalds
2007-06-14T19:14:25Z

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
>
> And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of hardware throught
> the influence of their software. And I think it's wrong. I'm all to forbid hardware
> that imposes restrictions on hardware, but software licenses are NOT the way
> to make it. That's a task for a "Free Hardware Foundation", not the FSF.

Amen. And btw, opencores.org does actually exist.

I don't even think open hardware is a big issue: the worry-warts about
hardware are likely wrong, and hardware today is a lot more open than it
used to be even just a decade ago. You can much more easily design your
own (FPGA's are cheap and powerful), and yes, it's more complex today, but
that's actually an argument _for_ openness rather than against it (open
processes work better in complex environments!).

The real issue is "open content", and we do actually have various
organizations that support that in particular. I would heartily encourage
people to get involved with the Creative Commons, and the EFF, and I think
Larry Lessig is a really smart and articulate person, who you should
listen to.

> What the FSF is trying to do is EVIL.

I wouldn't go that far (although, in the heat of the moment I probably
_have_ gone that far. Oops ;).

I don't think the FSF is evil. They're just too single-minded, and look
too much at one issue, and only care about the one thing they care about,
and in the process, they tend to have a really hard time seeing the other
side of the coin.

They define "freedom" one way, and by defining it in a very particular
way, they miss the fact that what is "freedom" to them is not "freedom" to
somebody else.

They have a very particular agenda, and in having that agenda and a very
strict view of how the world should look (according to the FSF), they
dismiss the fact that other people have _other_ agenda's, and see the same
world totally differently.

And I think that kind of single-mindedness is silly and
counter-productive.

I literally think that the GPLv2 has worked so well exactly because you
can strip it of its high-falutin' morality and the FSF Kool-Aid, and just
see it as a "tit-for-tat" license. It allows everybody to see that the
work they put in (into the _software_) is protected, and people cannot
make improved versions of that software and distribute those improved
versions without giving you the right back to use those improvements (to
the _software_).

So the GPLv2 may have come out of a very single-minded endeavor, but I
think it ended up being capable of so much more than rms really even
envisioned, exactly because you don't have to _view_ it in that manner.

Linus