On 22-Sep-2006, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
Today LWN published an article expressing the position of some Kernel developers on GPLv3 (http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/).
As expected, it's full of revisionist history. The GNU operating system is referred to as the "Linux operating system", and the GNU project merely contributes some parts; indeed, no single GNU project is referred to, but rather the individual tools from the GNU operating system are discussed as separate entities with their own disparate "projects".
While this may be understandable self-centric thinking, it frames the entire document. What is expedient to the Linux developers is seen as the most important thing; so, if there's no problem with the GPLv2 for the Linux developers, there's "no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2" and therefore GPLv3 is a waste of effort.
I agree with Alfred that this thinking should not hamper the GPLv3 efforts; clearly, when one views software freedom as more important than open-source expedience, the rationales for the GPLv3 (openly documented online) are sufficient to necessitate the effort.
Probably a response is needed, but it should not be adversarial. The Linux developers have allowed the GNU operating system, and all free software, to succeed vastly beyond the possibilities that existed at the time Linux was created, and the cause of software freedom continues to be aided by these friends to our cause.
We need to reaffirm solidarity with our friends who drive free software forward but choose to talk about open source, while making clear the free-software purposes that drive the GPLv3 efforts. A factual and friendly response, drawing on the documented rationales for the need for a new GPL, should be made soon. Who wants to volunteer?