Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

Trond Myklebust
2006-09-28T05:14:27Z

On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 23:39 -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 September 2006 22:46, Sergey Panov wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 20:15 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > So everybody - join the "Passionate Moderate" movement, even if you're
> > > not in the US. We're not passionate about any of the issues, we are just
> > > _really_ fed up with extreme opinions! And we're not afraid to say so!
> >
> > I hope you understand that "Passionate Moderate" is an oxymoron. And I
> > do not believe RMS is a commie! To me he is quite a moderate figure
> > (very strong principals and no diplomatic skills at all, but it does not
> > mean he is an extremist).
>
> After lots of careful consideration, I think it is fair to say that Stallman
> vigorously and extremely promotes and stands by his ideals, but the ideals he
> stands for aren't all that radical or extreme. That is the difference, isn't
> it? Wouldn't we all love free software running on free hardware, supporting
> free culture and talking over free spectrum? The biggest difference I've seen
> in the movements is that one aims to strike a conservative and functional
> balance while the other is always trying to push the envelope.

If that were true, then why is he trying to restrict people's freedom of
use? Face it: the GPLv3 is basically the GPLv2 + a load of restrictions
on how you are allowed to use the software. It is building on the same
traditions as the concepts of "Dictatorship of the proletariat" or
"PATRIOT act" whereby you are requested to give up a set of existing
freedoms in return for nebulous promises of a rosy future.

It is quite possible to fight for your ideals without compromising on
existing freedoms. That is what the FSF has failed to recognise.

Cheers,
Trond