http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/18/403 Ironic thread titles aside, I do totally agree with him (nearly). Software licenses should not impose themselves on the hardware they are run on. Discuss.
As far as i can read from it he doesnt like the fact that the fsf want's ROM's instead of flash. Heck. look at car manufacturers, they had flash and switched to ROM that was soldered in... it's a bugger to replace if it goes the highway.
I just love the way Linus handles smart asses... If you want to see more of that, just look at the Linux kernel mailing list OT, I think GPLv2 is far better then v3, just because of the more pragmatic approach. Ideals are good, but they shouldn't be absolute. You can have an ideal, and try to live up to it, but it has to work in the real world too.
What's crazy is I do not follow kernel development and I already knew that's why Linus doesn't like the GPL v3. I love the idea of being able to use Linux on proprietary devices with proprietary applications, you know why? Because that means potential corporate support! Look at Apple and BSD. Either way, I'm big on free will, and can't stand things that detract from it. I'd hate to be a freedom pharisee, someone who loves "freedom" so much they define what freedom is and force it on others. (Okay, there really isn't such a thing as a freedom pharisee, but since the Pharisees were all about choosing Law and rules over the ideals the Laws were intended to protect, it seems to fit.) Does Linus still have the final say on the Linux Kernel's License Agreement? I heard rumor that he doesn't, but I'm not sure where I'm getting that from.
You got it from me at lunch one day, but I can't find the article I got it from for the life of me. However, his own words in this discussion might help a bit.