Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

Gene Heskett
2006-09-28T02:34:42Z

On Wednesday 27 September 2006 19:16, Chase Venters wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 01:37:37PM -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
>>> I think one thing that should have happened a _lot_ sooner is that you
>>> and others should have made clear to the startled community that you
>>> object precisely to the anti-Tivoization clause, not because of any
>>> technical reason or interpretation but because you don't see anything
>>> wrong with Tivo's use of Linux. It would have been nice but totally
>>> optional to engage in dialogue with the FSF. But slandering them about
>>> their license development process, or their intentions with regard to
>>> using Linux as leverage, is counterproductive whether true or not.
>>
>> This has been made clear to Eben and the FSF, for a long time. The
>> FSF has simply chosen not to listen to Linus and other members of the
>> kernel community. In fact, I've never seen any interest in a
>> dialogue, just a pseudo-dialogue where "input is solicited", and then
>> as near as far as I can tell, at least on the anti-Tivo issue, has
>> been simply ignored. But in any case, it should not have come as a
>> surprise and should not have startled anyone.
>
>Perhaps I came off too strong, but I meant what I said, and I'm not only
>talking about things being made clear with Eben and the FSF. Frankly, I
>don't know what did or did not happen behind closed doors and it would be
>wrong of me to make assumptions about that.
>
>What I was really addressing here is that the whole F/OSS community
>exploded over the news that Linux was not adopting the GPLv3. I think
> it's fair to say that the reason why Linux is not adopting GPLv3 (aside
> from the very practical matter of gaining the consensus of copyright
> holders) is that Linus and other top copyright holders don't think what
> Tivo is doing is wrong. But when that statement first came out, it was
> almost lost in the noise of "The FSF is not going to listen to us, and
> what about encryption keys?" The former probably has no place outside of
> LKML; the latter is the sort of thing you'd bring up at gplv3.fsf.org if
> you wanted to participate in the process.
>
And this last statement pulls my trigger, Chase. Admittedly, the kernel is
not the whole of linux, and never has been, but without it, where are we?

Based on that, I find the attitude of the FSF to be downright overbearing
when they expect each and every one of the KERNEL developers to go get an
account and go through all the lollygagging around it takes to actually
leave a message through the channels the FSF expects you to use. I don't
care what you call it, it boils down at the end of the day to a PITA.

I'm here as a lurker, and potentially a small bit of wisdom based on
nothing more than my somewhat advanced age, but it seems to me that if the
FSF wanted real input from the guys & gals submitting patches on a daily
basis, then they owed it to ALL of you to come to this list and ASK! AND
GIVE WEIGHT TO THE ANSWERS GIVEN. The fact that they didn't do this in an
open discussion forum such as this, speaks whole sets of encyclopedias
vis-a-vis their apparent consideration (or should I say disdain?) for
those that do the real work.

This, FSF & RMS, is all about 'open' source, so bring the discussion to an
'open' forum instead of treating the movers & shakers present here in such
large numbers as just so much rabble, to be blown away with the water
cannon of your so-called legal wisdom when we get unruly.

Well, seeing as how we must be rabble, now we've been roused. Bring your
arguments to the table and let a consensus, if indeed there can be one,
gradually form in a manner that all can at least agree to disagree on.

And do it in plain language that even some who do not speak english as a
first language can easily understand. We need comprehension, not
legaleze.

>So a lot of people spent a lot of time thinking Linus was just confused
>about the license and its intentions and that if they could just show him
>why he was reading it wrong he'd change his mind. The point I'm trying
>to make here about what _should_ have happened a lot sooner is that the
>problem should have been defined in the simplest possible terms: "We
> don't want to cut off Tivo. We don't think they are in the wrong." Then
> it boils down to a simple difference in philosophy and everyone can move
> on.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> - Ted
>
>Thanks,
>Chase Venters

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.