No, it really isn't unfortunate -- and Linus explained why:
Your reply amounts to "Your opinion differs from Linus's opinion, and is therefore wrong."
There are many reasons why one might wish that Linux was GPLv3: for instance, one might think that the "anti-Tivoisation" provisions are important. Linus obviously doesn't share this point of view; that doesn't make it an invalid point of view to have.
> And please, when you join that fight, use your _own_ copyrights. Not somebody elses. I absolutely hate how the FSF has tried to use my code as a weapon, just because I decided that their license was good.
and about having a poll deciding the matter
> Here's a poll for you: > - go write your own kernel > - poll which one is more popular
I very often dislike Linus style of discussion, but that one was pretty clear and straightforward.
Actually, I don't think it's a bullshit argument in cases where the fundamentals are here: Somebody calls a vote on the license of code that was largely written by the the other person. That other person is totally entitled to say "Hey, go, vote on the license of your piece of code and not on mine."
And you can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't agree with Linus.
Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed.
You can't seriously convince me for a moment that the vast majority of the Linux community doesn't disagree with Linus.
Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey.
> Every single kernel contributor must at least feel partially the same way, after all, they agreed to contribute under the existing license terms which (as Linus pointed out) can effectively never be changed.
You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.
Your task now should be obvious: Come up with an agreed-upon definition of "the Linux community", and run a valid survey.
You've established nothing more than that the kernel contributors are willing to work within that framework, not that they feel the same as Linus does.
As they, "actions speak louder than words" -- and your words seem very dim compared to the action of thousands of contributors.
Then it's not going to happen, and our opinions are equally valid.
> it's logical to assume that they agree with both the licensing and direction
No, it's not. It's logical to assume they accept them. There are many reasons they might do so. One is certainly because they agree with them, another is that, weighing the benefits of working within the existing framework, they conclude it outweighs their disagreement with the licensing and direction.
Some of the benefits include, by the way, continued salary. Most kernel contributors are paid for their work by employers.
I work within frameworks I disagree with all the time. We all do. Sometimes because I'm paid for it. Sometimes because I feel I can do more good within that framework than fighting it. Sometimes it's because I'm bound to by law or social contract.
That I don't shoot anyone that stands in the way of my ideals is not the same as saying I agree with theirs.
If I had some motivation to do so (something I thought needed fixed, a new driver I wanted, or an employer who paid me), I would have no issue contributing to the Linux kernel. Yet I disagree with the decision to make it GPLv2 only.
Anyone who can't hold two opposed ideas in their mind at the same time is surely too stupid to be trusted to work on a kernel, no?
That's why we have the right to fork. While we can't change GPLv2 kernel code, there is nothing stopping anybody from including GPLv3 code in the kernel so long as it doesn't directly link against GPLv2 code in a way when the fork is distributed.
If linus decided tomorrow to make new software under a license that only allowed white people to use it, I would consider it wrong and a racist license. I reject your claim that the author has the right to establish such license as "right".
More like: "Someone other respected person believes otherwise, and here is their justification. This other position may be a better one, for the reasons they give."