Torvalds argues that the Free Software Foundation is trying to hijack the GPL to push an agenda of patent and DRM reform. That might all be jolly great, but Torvalds isn't looking to fight that battle.

To take his argument further, everybody agrees that cancer research needs billions of dollars. But that doesn't justify a provision in the GPL to promote fund raising for such studies.

Torvalds' ideals simply don't match with those of Free Software Foundation. He's willing to live with the band aids that have been applied to the patent system and can see DRM as a necessary evil.

That is probably the best way to go for Linux to remain successful, but won't do much to solve the patent problem.

Several people within the open source movement are disappointed with Torvalds' lack of support for the GPL3.

But the dissent merely shows that "open source" means many things to many people. As it goes with revolutions, people agree on the first step to take doesn’t preclude dissent at a later stage.

Torvalds has turned out to be a pragmatist who prefers to focus on making Linux successful. The Free Software Foundation believes that the battle is far from over.

Both are right, and neither has the moral or legal right to force their views upon the other.

Revolutionaries-turned-lecturers
(Disclaimer: image intended to depict revolution and debate - in no way am suggesting that their is any link between open source and communism/socialism/leninsm.)

technorati tags: linux, gpl, gpl3, open+source, linus+torvalds, free+software+foundation, FSF