Replies

Linux is licensed under the GPL, so how can it break the GPL's terms?

The Linux license is a variant, that permits linking to libraries and OS elements without invoking the GPL. If this exception didn't exist, then Linux would be going nowhere and FreeBSD would be the darling of the commercial software vendors. All of the standard Linux libraries are LGPL licensed and there is evidence that Stallman wishes the LGPL, which allows commercial software to link to open source code, would go away.

Or are you talking about how Stallman got his panties all in a bunch when Linus decided to use the proprietary Bitkeeper as Linux's content management system? Those two just do not get along. Stallman is an egotistic ivory-tower type, while Linus is a down-to-earth realist.

No, I'm talking about LGPL vs. pure GPL and Linus Torvald's intepretation. You are correct that Linus Torvalds, despite having a die-hard communist father (or perhaps because he did), is more of a down-to-Earth realist than Stallman. If that weren't the case, Linux would be going nowhere fast.

I'm talking about LGPL vs. pure GPL

Okay, just wondering what you were basing the statement on. Of course, anything but what's in Stallman's little heart pisses him off to no end. The guy just doesn't have room for those who think differently, kind of like the folks at Microsoft, SCO and AdTI.

You've got the Linux kernel (what Linus works on) confused with various libraries often seen on systems called "Linux" systems (which are mostly GNU and FSF libraries) seriously confused.

The Linux license is GPL - it's the kernel, it doesn't have any separately linked libraries. There is no library exception for the Linux kernel. Because there are no separate libraries for the kernel. The Linux kernel license doesn't violate GPL - it is GPL. Period.

Separately sourced drivers and loadable modules, working through the allowed exported API's, and user level programs, working through the classic system call API, are separate and not subject to the kernels GPL license. That this is so is not any "exception" to the GPL license. It is just a statement of where the Linux kernel's GPL ends, and other software's licensing begins.

I suspect you are confusing the loadable kernel module and driver license situation with user level LGPL library licensing.

My main problem with open source is Point 3 from the article - "All software should be free". As a software developer, I kind of scratch my head at people giving away their work. I don't mean the small, but helpful utilities that probably were fairly quick to write. Instead, what about the larger, man-hour intensive programs? I understand the concept that you can charge for "service". It just does not make sense to my capitalist mindset.

I wonder how automobiles would be if car manufacturers followed the open source model. The car is free and all you have to pay for is support / maintenance :)

Maybe we should start an "Open health care movement". Have a bunch of medically inclined hackers to get together and open a clinic. Isn't health care more important than software?

The Linux license is a variant, that permits linking to libraries and OS elements without invoking the GPL.

No its not a varient it is exactly the GPL! read the GPL file that comes with linux than read the one on GNU's website how are the two different?.. You are allowed to link to GPL libraries so long as its a dynamic and not a static call. Many (not all are LPGL which let you statically link). The funny thing is stallman has no say in if the LPGL goes away or not, nore do I or Linus, someone can choose to use the GPL, LGPL, or the BSD license or they can choose not to, how is that viral??

communist father (or perhaps because he did), is more of a down-to-Earth realist than Stallman. If that weren't the case, Linux would be going nowhere fast.

Da comrade I am usink the Linux software... Gosh are you really going to get on his dad was a communist? get a life and stop throwing that around as if it mattered. Now I notice all the wonderful 'if' clauses in there, well noe of them have happened and the use of GPL and LPGL have created a software package that is going places very fast..

Not to mention the fact that FSF had been working on HURD for such a very long time. I guess the fact that Linus introduced a workable OS when Stallman's FSF HURD team couldn't didn't sit very well with Stallman.

Not to knock Stallman too badly. A lot of the work done by FSF is absolutely superb, notwithstanding Stallman's absolute communist leanings.

BTW, is the GNU manifesto still hanging around, or did the FSF properly trash that years ago?