That still doesn't wash. It is quite possible to believe that the GNU project and what's associated with it (FSF) is a net positive while disagreeing with some of the actions of its founders or boosters, or some of their ideology.
The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us" - but over here in the real world, things are not so black and white.
> The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us" - but over here in the real world, things are not so black and white.
That isn't in the least true. You should be very careful when trying to decode someones mindset because now you are putting words in someones mouth that never was there in the first place.
I don't thinks words are being put into anyone's mouth, what was said was quite clear:
> while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software
As stated in above comments I would find it hard to believe Linus would not say that GNU is a valuable asset or software built strictly promoting GNU/FSF principles is bad ... but he's been labeled as anti-GNU for writing software that has a more permissible license. I don't see how this could be an even more "with us or against us" attitude.
You could argue the above statement is an overgeneralization of what the OP said to the whole movement. But there are plenty of thing that prominent individuals, who work on GNU and represent the FSF, have said that would support this attitude.
> but he's been labeled as anti-GNU for writing software that has a more permissible license
No. he has been labeled as anti-gnu because of torvalds own statement like:
"So I'm pretty well-known for not exactly being a huge fan
of the FSF and Richard Stallman"
"Linux from the very beginning was not about the FSF ideals."
I would not directly call it anti-gnu, but neither is he friendly. He can also not be directly called truly neutral given the number of negative comments he has made about projects and work.
I don't like the FSF or Stallman's ideals myself (I find them dogmatic, unrealistic, and probably a bunch of other negative adjectives) but I cannot deny they are a net positive influence on the world. I'm also annoyed because that very dogmatism weakens their very positive message.
I have a hard time seeing how the world would work if people did not strive to achieve their goals.
Take a for-profit company. Their goal is to make money. If I ask them to compromise on this and stop earning money, they get very dogmatic about it and completely refuse.
If I ask a politician to start promoting a competitor, he will also dogmatic refuse. I can not even get him to compromise. I offer him nice bribe money, and he should accept it and step down.
What I am trying to say is that dogma and compromises are not the black and white, good and evil. Dogma is required to make the world work, and compromises are only good when it doesn't interfere too much with it.
In particular, a comment by ukryule seems especially applicable:
"Taken in the spirit intended. I accept that the GNU principles are quite clearly defined - but is it really the case that "you're either with us or against us"? The original post was asking about Ximian "abandoning it's GNU values" - to which I think pointing out the open-source work it is doing is a perfectly valid response (it shows that the company at least has common ground with GNU). To be fair, I don't know if Ximian (the company) ever supported GNU values ... but if they continue to spend say 80% of their time on GPL'd sw and the other 20% on prorietory sw does this imply they do or don't support GNU values? "
This must be the most intellectually dishonest comment I've read in a while. Either find someone from FSF who's written what you're claiming or this discussion is over. Finding unrelated people who feels something about the FSF's position and quoting that.. is just silly.
You must be confused. I'm not claiming anything at all. I'm saying Google something and I'm saying someone wrote something 13 years ago. Any conclusions you draw are your own.
I don't think anyone was arguing that the FSF being all-or-nothing, us-and-them, with-us-or-against-us was not a prevalent meme amongst their detractors. It long has been. The question was whether it is an accurate description of their positions.
"That still doesn't wash. It is quite possible to believe that the GNU project and what's associated with it (FSF) is a net positive while disagreeing with some of the actions of its founders or boosters, or some of their ideology."
A fair point. Picking licenses that explicitly forbid incorporation of your code in modern GNU projects is a little more than that, though.
'The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us"'
I don't think that's quite as true as you think it is.
I'd love to be proven wrong on this. Considering that their figurehead regards closed source software as unambiguously evil, I don't see many other ways to interpret their behvaior.
But:
>Picking licenses that explicitly forbid incorporation of your code in modern GNU projects
By GNU fiat and nothing more. Some of us would rather code than get involved in tiresome political disputes. (See also the BSD class of licenses)
"I'd love to be proven wrong on this. Considering that their figurehead regards closed source software as unambiguously evil, I don't see many other ways to interpret their behvaior."
Assuming (with confidence) that you mean RMS, he regards it as evil but my understanding is that his framework for making the assertion is more consequentialist than his detractors believe. With "evil" usually used in more deontological frameworks, I think the confusion is understandable but also understand his not wanting to give up the forcefulness implied by the term (we see time and again that people seem to underweight the risks implied by giving up their rights); I'm not sure if it's a mistake or not.
"By GNU fiat and nothing more. Some of us would rather code than get involved in tiresome political disputes. (See also the BSD class of licenses)"
No, by technicality of the licenses. It is not possible to write a license that 1) adds more restrictions, and 2) is compatible with GPLv2. 1) was deemed necessary because of what were seen as loopholes in GPLv2 - this may be construed as choice but "fiat" implies an arbitrariness that was not present. If instead Git was released under "GPLv2 or later", that code could be used more broadly - which is usually the rallying cry behind those endorsing more permissive licenses. It would still be entirely possible to move code from the work to GPLv2-only licensed projects.
This teacup tempest is entirely of GNU's own making. It's nobody else's fault that their licenses are so onerous that they can't even keep them compatible with later revisions they themselves produce.
This is bullshit rhetorical sophistry, and I'm pretty sure you know it.
Choosing an incompatible license is the fault of the person who chose the license. The FSF made a mistake in not building "... or any later version" into the GPLv2; they acknowledge this. They've been recommending for some time - since long before the start of the Git project - that projects interested in being GPLv2 compatible include "... or any later version."
Imagine it was a piece of software with a bug. There's a patched version, it's been broadly announced that there was a bug and there is a fix. You ignore that and use the buggy version. Whose fault is it when you trip over the bug? Claiming it is "entirely of [the programmer]'s own making" is absurd.
"No, I don't know it. The GNU's license absolutism is what got them into this mess in the first place. It's inherent in their aims."
Dismantling of copyright and a replacement with a requirement ensuring the freedoms the FSF cares about would thrill them, and not produce this license-incompatibility mess. It is plain, therefore, that it is not at all inherent to their aims. It may be inherent to this particular strategy - but again, license compatibility is something they've been looking at explicitly since making the mistake with GPLv2.
"Imagine that it's a piece of software with a new UX direction not everyone agrees with."
If the criticism was "They did not use GPLv3", that might be a more reasonable analogy than mine. The criticism was they used GPLv2 when they could have used GPLv2+. It's like using the buggy version specifically because others can't use the new UX with it (even though I can still use my old UX with the fixed version). Characterizing that as a move in opposition to those that like the new UX is the only reasonable characterization, absent other overriding factors (back out of metaphor, the only possible reason I could see is a need to use a lot of GPLv2 code in Git - someone else would have to speak to whether that is reality).
