It seems that the real issue behind all of the recent vitriol about the messages from the Linux kernel developers about the GPLv3 issues comes down to the basic "Free Software" vs. "Open Source" issues.

Linus hits the nail on the head, detailing how the kernel developers, for the most part, never bought into the FSF's crusade, and in the end, eclipsed them by achieving world domination despite ignoring the FSF's rhetoric.

Also, Lawrence Lessig brings up the big point that the FSF needs to realize that the GPL is much bigger than them, and they should pay attention to the whole community when changing these licenses:

So his [RMS] challenge is whether he evolves these licenses in ways that fit his own views alone, recognizing those views deviate from many important parts of the movement he started. Or whether he evolves these licenses to support the communities they have enabled. This is not a choice of principle vs compromise. It is a choice about what principle should govern the guardians of these licenses.

It's part of the learning process when approaching the open source / free software process. Once you let your code/ideas go, they get used by others in ways that you sometimes don't like. Embracing that use and realizing that your code/ideas are now not your own, but part of the larger community and ecosystem as things to be built on and modified is a sign of maturity.

Trying to keep a tight grip on your code/ideas and ignoring others really isn't the true philosophy of what the FSF has been espousing over the years. Hopefully they can realize this and change the GPLv3 to be more inclusive.

posted Thu, 28 Sep 2006 in [/diary]