Re: Linux Foundation opening doors to individual participation
Posted by: hopethishelps
on September 21, 2008 08:56 AM
"When did Open Source become so high-handed?"
Generally speaking I don't think Open Source people are high-handed, but I agree with you about the impression the Linux Foundation makes, and I think it's Linus Torvalds. Yes, he's done a lot for free software. But in the last few years he has appeared to become increasingly obsessed with personal control and recognition. Other people have done just as much, or more, for free software. But they don't try to attach their name to the operating system that everybody uses. Torvalds has pushed (hard enough to be mostly successful) for the entire GNU/Linux bundle to be called "Linux" after him. How much of a typical "Linux distro", like Red Hat or SuSE or Debian, has Linus Torvalds actually written? 0.001% maybe? (Don't say his bit is "essential" because a lot of stuff is essential - the shell is essential, the C compiler is essential, editors are essential, X is essential, scads of programs are essential.)
Then there was the spat over moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3. The discussion process that led to GPLv3 was about the most open process ever held, for anything. But Torvalds dissed it because it didn't give a Special Role to Linus Torvalds. (It didn't give a special role to anybody, except maybe Eben Moglen, as was appropriate because a lawyer had to pull the whole thing together.) Since Torvalds is in a position to stop the kernel moving to GPLv3 licensing (so are several other people, by the way, he is no longer the only major contributor to the kernel), he could and did indulge his petty grudge to prevent harmonization of GNU/Linux licensing on GPLv3.
By the way, if you read the article carefully, you'll see that individuals can't actually "join" the Linux Foundation as members. They can only become "associates", with no real rights except voting for two of the directors (out of a total of 16 or 18 - the official web site says 16, but I think the 2 directors that associates can vote for are additional).
What is the Linux Foundation really for? The further glorification of Linus Torvalds? We already have a Free Software Foundation, not named after anybody. Do we need another one named for Linus Torvalds and driven by nominees of large corporations?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re: Linux Foundation opening doors to individual participation
Posted by: hopethishelps on September 21, 2008 08:56 AMGenerally speaking I don't think Open Source people are high-handed, but I agree with you about the impression the Linux Foundation makes, and I think it's Linus Torvalds. Yes, he's done a lot for free software. But in the last few years he has appeared to become increasingly obsessed with personal control and recognition. Other people have done just as much, or more, for free software. But they don't try to attach their name to the operating system that everybody uses. Torvalds has pushed (hard enough to be mostly successful) for the entire GNU/Linux bundle to be called "Linux" after him. How much of a typical "Linux distro", like Red Hat or SuSE or Debian, has Linus Torvalds actually written? 0.001% maybe? (Don't say his bit is "essential" because a lot of stuff is essential - the shell is essential, the C compiler is essential, editors are essential, X is essential, scads of programs are essential.)
Then there was the spat over moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3. The discussion process that led to GPLv3 was about the most open process ever held, for anything. But Torvalds dissed it because it didn't give a Special Role to Linus Torvalds. (It didn't give a special role to anybody, except maybe Eben Moglen, as was appropriate because a lawyer had to pull the whole thing together.) Since Torvalds is in a position to stop the kernel moving to GPLv3 licensing (so are several other people, by the way, he is no longer the only major contributor to the kernel), he could and did indulge his petty grudge to prevent harmonization of GNU/Linux licensing on GPLv3.
By the way, if you read the article carefully, you'll see that individuals can't actually "join" the Linux Foundation as members. They can only become "associates", with no real rights except voting for two of the directors (out of a total of 16 or 18 - the official web site says 16, but I think the 2 directors that associates can vote for are additional).
What is the Linux Foundation really for? The further glorification of Linus Torvalds? We already have a Free Software Foundation, not named after anybody. Do we need another one named for Linus Torvalds and driven by nominees of large corporations?
#