

DebConf 2014's QA with Linus Torvalds [video] - caio1982
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2014/debconf14/webm/QA_with_Linus_Torvalds.webm

======
rando289
I think his view that the most important part of the license is that it makes
the software better is shortsighted. If linux gets used in 95% of all capable
hardware everywhere, but it's all on locked down hardware by a few companies,
what is the point of being open source? Effectively, it's proprietary software
which is co-owned by a group of corporations, and the open source is primarily
a training program for future employees and phds. Users being able to choose
what software they want to run on their devices does matter. Well, he did say
it was a fine license (if you care about that). Also, I don't think he gives
enough credit to fsf, as almost all other free/open source licenses
automatically and always allow later versions, but gpl doesn't. Creative
commons is one big example.

~~~
avar
He doesn't have a problem with the GPLv2 allowing later versions, that's
completely reasonable. His problem was that with the GPLv3 they changed the
spirit of the license. He thinks a license "upgrade" shouldn't have done that,
they should have just released a new license instead.

I.e. previously the agreement was "here's my code, if you change it send me
the changes", now in addition to that it includes clauses about what you can
do with the hardware you run it on.

I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but
is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? If companies want
locked-down hardware they're just going to do lock it down anyway, and just
use e.g. FreeBSD instead of Linux and contribute none of their code changes
back.

Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their
code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they
can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux?

~~~
rando289
I believe the spirit of the license was not changed. The spirit was spelled
out by fsf and rms very well in things like the free software definition, and
faqs about the purpose of the license etc. Not disallowing tivoization was an
oversight in the legal code which needed to be corrected for the spirit to
remain what it had been. Linus thinks the spirit was in the exact legal code.
That is more like "the letter of the license", not the spirit.

> I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices,
> but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle?

Is it legal for software to defraud people, to act explicitly for
ransom/extortion, or purposely kill people by stopping their medical devices?
No. If it was, and it was happening a lot, I bet a copyright license that had
something to say about that would be popular. Consumer owned devices which
attempt to force people to use specific software for no technical reason, just
so they can make more profit from the user, should be illegal outside of any
copyright license. Until that happens, then yes gpl is one of the right
venues.

> Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their
> code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they
> can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux?

Ya, right now it's that way, especially since they don't do a good job of
locking things down and you can circumvent it on most phones. But it's not at
all certain it will stay that way.

------
blutoot
I am really heartened by his push for consumer-facing simplicity of the OS
which, by his account, the distros have not helped in achieving. I didn't
expect that from him given that he operates at a much fundamental level of
computing. But his example with his kids' connectivity issues tells me that
even the nerdiest person starts appreciating the value of simplicity when they
start facing use cases that demand it.

------
shaurz
Loved his rant on glibc, etc. breaking stuff. I've been saying this myself for
years. Really static linking is the only way to make a binary for Linux that
will work on any distribution.

~~~
fosap
I'm not sure, but doesn't the opensuse build service tries to solve these
problems? I haven't used it, but I think i slurps source code and builds
packages for multiple distributions.

And I absolutely agree with Linus view on linking. I just tried to install
ffmpeg on opensuse on a desktop pc. All I wanted was one statically linked
binary. I had to dig a wiki, follow outdated build instructions (not nearly
enough dependencies where listed, I had to go back several times, configure
runs like 20 minutes), it took hours. For one simple binary. FFmpeg could put
on their homepage.

~~~
rodgerd
Build services are great if you have the source to everything. But the reality
is I've got software I paid for on Linux that doesn't run on a modern distro
after a decade, and software I paid for on Windows that's 15 years old and
runs fine.

------
banachtarski
I wish the deb and ubuntu package maintainers would take note. I avoid those
packages like the plague.

------
_RPM
The man at 18.00 minutes with the question about the mailing list tone. He
kind of called Mr. Torvalds out on the way he talks to people on the mailing
list. What grounds does he have to say something like that to Torvalds?

~~~
meddlepal
Why not? First, I thought the response was perfectly reasonable, but second, I
think the way Linus behaves publicly entitles any person with or without
credentials to legitimately question if that is the best approach. Linus, by
making his criticisms both public and humiliating at times must expect to be
criticized by anyone, especially someone willing to come out from behind a
keyboard and ask him in person!

~~~
blutoot
The fact that Linus didn't take offense to the criticism of his abrasive
nature shows that he expects it to be a two-way street. He really does have a
thick skin.

~~~
dan00
Linus told a story about a guy, that wrote something for the kernel and Linus
thought in the first place that it was more or less bullshit, but didn't told
it directly to the guy, so when the guy was finished and wanted to get his
stuff merged, Linus had to tell him that he will never merge this.

I don't know how mucher later, but this guy killed himself afterwards. Linus
told that he doesn't feel guilty about this or thinks that he was the main
cause for the killing, but well, I don't think that such an experience has no
effect on your behaviour, but I can't tell if Linus' behaviour was different
before this event.

I think that Linus told this story in the talk where he showed nvidia the
finger.

~~~
conistonwater
This is the part of that talk, I believe:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2111](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2111)

I actually find his reasons quite convincing, I think he's got a point.

~~~
buovjaga
He said the developer's friends told him "he is suicidal", not that he killed
himself.

~~~
dan00
Oh, thanks, I just heard it again and yes, Linus says "suicidal", at the time
I might just heard "suicided".

