There’s an interesting article up on GPLv3 adoption. The number they provide are actually pretty iffy, especially since they seem to conflate GPLv2 with the “or later” clause as the same thing as a GPLv3 license, which according to my understanding isn’t legally true for most purposes related to the changes from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
The more interesting part is the interviews. They talk to Chris DiBona, who is in charge of google’s open source efforts, about why Google’s code hosting service doesn’t support AGPLv3. DiBona gives a very reasonable defense. Specifically, there are very few people using AGPLv3, and license proliferation is becoming very problematic. There are numerous open source licenses out there that are duplicate, or mutually incompatible, or have wierd requirements that developers who use them don’t know about, and it is getting increasingly difficult to put together a software package that uses different open source libraries without a subtle conflict the developer doesn’t know about.
I’ve met Chris DiBona briefly, and he seemed like a pretty reasonable guy. In contrast, the Stallman interview summarized:
Ernest Park: … Do you have any comments on the GPLv3 site and the progress that we’ve been maintaining?
Richard Stallman: In general, I’m rather unhappy with Palamida, both for terminology (it generally uses the term “open source”, which stands for values I disagree with) …
(refuses to answer question)
Ernest Park: would you mind providing a comment less vague and subjective, focused more on the community acceptance and success of the GPLv3 family of licenses?
Richard Stallman: The free software movement is not merely personal. It is a political movement like the environmental movement, the civil rights movement, etc.
(in other words, no)
Wow. Not only does he refuse to answer the question, but he goes on to compare himself and his movement to MLK and the civil rights movement, and the environmental movement. Someone should explain to this guy that being famous on the internet doesn’t put you in the same league as Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi. It puts you in the same league as Tila Tequila and Maddox.
Every single interview I’ve ever seen of Stallman he manages to say something equivalent. I’ve even seen him criticize the One Laptop Per Child project for prioritizing the education of poor children over the advancement of free software. He just strikes me as very egotistical and combative, and the exact kind of guy I’d never want to meet in person.
EDIT: Here’s another example of Stallman’s rhetorical style at its best, taking some digs at Bill Gates for his retirement and some nice third party commentary.
Yet, I rarely see his name come up without being referred to as the leader of the free software movement, or being called a visionary. Is there a real basis for this? What is his vision exactly as it differs from the more common open source model? That all open source developers and users are just as filled with spite and bile as he is?
Anyway, that’s a bit of a rant, but I was kind of ticked off and felt like putting my thoughts down.
Tags: Chris DiBona, GPL, Open Source, rant, Richard Stallman, RMS
