As in, when mama ain't happy, ain't no one happy. (Picture from Wikimedia Commons.)
Right now, Linus ain't happy, not at all. Especially about GPLv3. He considers the anti-Tivoization provisions in the new license, which keep you from crippling hardware containing software using the license, to be...well, take it away Linus:
In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I'm their legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about "legality", this is about "morality". The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself.
Linus feels the new GPL goes where no license should go, that it demands specific moral choices. But, please, read his whole post before commenting.
My view remains that this will play out in the market. If the GPL has forked, which fork will prevail? There are, after all, many valid, OSI-approved BSD licenses out there.
Which license, to you, is the real bottom of the open source incline?[poll id=46]