El 17/04/13 22:20, [email protected] escribió: > This is purely a technical question from a legal angle, personal whims > and opinions are not relevant on this one. >
Legal question have legal opinions. So...these are my opinions. > If Linus did switch the GPLv3, would that force him to make all > releases with all code contained therein 100% open source? > Yes. But he soid he would not because he says people should be free to enslave others (in other words). > I am asking this from a OpenBSD perspective in that it is a lot easier > to maintain a complete operating system that is purely open source > with zero binary blobs thrown in the mix. OpenBSD does have binary blobs on its kernel (the last time I checked). > I don't consider Linux a complete operating system Linux is not an operating system. GNU is an operating system. Linux is a kernel. > since the people with commit access to kernel source as well as > libraries are not the same ones who put out installable releases for > the end user like the BSD's do. If Torvalds decided to license Linux as GNU GPLv3, he he wouldn't have to realease the code to all the kernel because he is the person that has the rights to the code. He would not enforce the license on himself as he does now with GNU GPLv2. > Linux is not centralized like the BSD's, that is why it is false to > call each of the BSD's a distribution, they are each their own > complete operating system. > > But I look at projects like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Replicant, Trisquel, > Parabola, and with all of them being 100% open source in terms of > what's included in the installation, and that they are a lot better > for security and anonymity or privacy. So this got me to wondering, if > Linus did switch to GPLv3, and I know full well there would be all > kinds of fallout as a result of it, but if Torvalds did change the > license would that physically force all Linux distributions and all > Linux based development to be 100% open source? It would depend on him. > > For technical reasons I do not care about if something is "free" as > much as I care about if something is open source or not. > > You are confusing free with gratis. We use free as freedom respecting. So, almost all opensource software is free software. The exception is tivoized software. The basic difference is not between open source and free software but between the intentions of both movements. The free software movement's objective is users' freedom. The open source movement's objective is better quality and cheap software. They would give up freedom for the sake of functionality and price. We would give up functionality or price for the sake of freedom. They are thinking of instant benefit in spite of long term servitude. We are thinking of durable benefit in spite of short term inconvenience. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios) Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro Quito, Ecuador (02)-600 8579 IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
