Slashdot Mirror
Linus Says No GPLv3 for the Linux Kernel
HenchmenResources writes "Late Wednesday a posting from Linus Torvalds appered on the the Linux Kernel Mailing List. In it Linus states that the Linux Kernel will remain under the GPLv2. Types Linus,"The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself.""
What is that thing about developers having to turn over their private keys? I don't think anything that stupid is even considered for GPLv3.
I wish there would be a rational and friendly discussion. Is that too much? Have we come thus far?
This comes as no great surprise. How could Linus convert it to v3, even if he wanted to? There are thousands of individual copyright holders to contact (not everyone released it under "any later version"). For some of them, that's going to require a seance and/or JLH, since they are dead now. I consider this a non-story, personally, we knew this was going to happen before v3 was even announced.
How can code released under the GPL be relicensed at all, even GPLv3? If it can be, why can't I take it and license it with a BSD-style or completely closed source license?
dig the php db connect debug code at the top of that linked linus posting.
mirrored anyone?
Linus says:
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it.
Private signing keys? I must have missed that in the GPLv3 discussion so far. What on earth is he talking about?
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Either, one entity holds the copyrights, and are free to change the license. Or, the copyright holders have agreed upon submitting their code, to allow the thing to be released as "GPL v2 or later".
Dvorak on Doomtech
Here is the full text as it took me several times to get past the MySQL errors with too many connections:
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From Linus Torvalds
Subject Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
> someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
> kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Discussion over GPLv3 has been going on for quite some time now even though the draft has just now emerged. He has mentioned a few things, one is that he has no problem with DRM in the kernel, whereas GPLv3 is Anti-DRM. Also Linus opposed having his developers have to make their private keys available, which was stated in the article.
I think he's thought it though, and I think the decision makes sense. No one says you have to increment from GPLv2 to GPLv3, it is at your option. RMS make the license more restrictive, too restrictive, therefore Linus said no.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid.
Nothing to see here, please move along.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
To me this just reflects a deep distrust of Richard Stallman and his social agenda. Stallman has become an impatient utopianist an, like most utopianists, he's resorting to tyranny where his past attempts to win hearts and minds have failed. Linus may be paranoid in this example but that paranoia is grounded in a loathing of Stallman's fundamentalist thinking.
Going ANYWHERE with IE is bad. I keep asking my team lead if we can stop supporting IE, but he rambles on about how "most of our users use IE" or some such nonsense.
Actually, I'd like that code for my website. I wonder if its freely available ...
That's really annoying..
Yeah, well, the truth hurts sometimes.
Gaaaah! My eyes are bleeding from the use of parentheses in that post...
They are only trying to keep you from encrypting the code/binary. If the code uses keys to encrypt data that it processes then it does not have to be given out.
I think you have it wrong. Firefox ads are good.
Whats truly annoying are the people still using a backward, outdated browser, namely Internet Explorer. It sucks having to break perfectly good HTML (or worse, maintaining two seprate versions) to allow archaic IE to render it. That's annoying.
You sound like King George III talking about those uppity Americans.
People still using Internet Exlorer are really annoying.
Yes, that code is freely available at http://www.explorerdestroyer.com/
If I see anything like that on a website, I pretty much instantly discount anything that website has to say. It's juvenile, and wrong,as I get pop-ups with Firefox, and plenty of viruses attempts whiz right past firefox, and don't stop until my virus checker gets 'em (http://free-av.com./
I don't respond to AC's.
I'm happy to read that Linus appears to have a lot more sense than the FSF people who are so anti-business that they want to sabotage many of the businesses who embraced open source.
What a rude awakening the GPL3 has the potential to foster, as firms go fleeing back to closed source alternatives in order to comply.
Thanks Linus!
Amazing magic tricks
People shouldn't forget that most of the kernel code is a derivative work on Linus' original 0.01 kernel and, as such, he has the right to say how those parts can be licensed.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
In the V2 of the GPL, there was an obligation of making the usable, human-readable version of the code avaliable. Ergo: we shouldn't need keys to read the code.
When you have the code, any "protection" of the executable generated can be easily stripped out, as can also be the case of output files of the app.
Case closed?
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
The question is will Linus refuse contributions, licensed under GPLv3?
Including a GPLv3 licensed parts will require distribution of the derived work (i.e. the kernel) to comply with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 requirements, thus effectively making the whole kernel GPLv3.
~velco
I made the same decision Linus did on a project I run. I like what GPLv2 says, I don't want someone at MIT deciding, years after I wrote my code, what the terms of the license on my code are by granting additional rights or restrictions. My application happens to be one that runs on a server and presents users with a web interface. As you'll recall, there were originally thoughts that v3 would require modifications to such applications to be available.
Beyond the fact that you can't move the kernel due to not all contributors agreeing - is it possible that Linus simply doesn't like the new provisions in GPL3.
I can tell you that I don't care for several of the provisions. They are VERY anti-business. This license is less free than others because of the new provisions. I predict that the new wording will drive more new projects to BSD style licensing.
Don't get me wrong - I hate DRM just like everyone else, but I think GPL3 goes over-board. It seems more a political statement than a practical license now.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Now you know how users of other browsers feel when going to pages that urge them to use IE.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Of course, it's actually GPLv2 or later, because several source files have the "v2 or later" clause.
http://outcampaign.org/
Building a site that only renders well in MSIE is not particularly smart, building a site that explicitely places an annoyingly huge banner at the top if you're using MSIE is just morally wrong.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The GPL states: "If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."
Usually GPLed code contains this statement: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
I bet this is true for linux source code as well.
You aren't going to be a very good grammar nazi if you simply parrot all the things your Junior High School English teacher told you. Do a little research. After all, you don't still labor under the impression that ending a sentence with a preposition is "wrong", do you? The origin of English rules is as complicated (and often as senseless) as the rules themselves.
in any substantial fashion. Philosophy doesn't yield code.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
...who uses "that" when he should use "who."
- The Grammar Gestapo
hear hear!
You don't need to resort to stupidity to get people to switch. If Firefox is the better it will sort itself out.. thus the beauty of the free market.
The guy that started the topic is the same !#@&% guy that offered to relicense the linux kernel for some $50,000 not some time ago.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/20/226
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/23/186
I suggest that the main weakness of the GPL is the wording "(at your option) any later version". Whether this wording is part of the license or not, is a troubling grey area.
:]m
Consider the following scenario: Monopoly Software Co., somehow:
- infiltrates the FSF
- marginalizes its current leadership
- possibly changes the FSF charter
- then, releases GPL version 6, granting MoSoCo full rights to use, modify and sell derivative works, etc
Of course, MoSoCo uses "at [their] option" only this last version of the GPL for all their derivative works, and they make lots of money on the sweat of the open source community, no strings attached.
The crux of the matter resides in the reliance of the license on the benevolence of a variable group of people.
(ignoring the fact that the program you mentioned above is NOT eligible for copyright protection because of its obviety, non-intellectual-novelty and other similar factors)
If you distributed your code to me under the terms of the GPL, and I made a derivative work, and I distributed my derivative work (under the terms of the GPL also, because this would be mandatory), then a third work, derivative of my work, can only be licensed under the terms of the GPL regardless of any change in the license of the original code.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I know there is hostility toward the GPL, but I don't understand how it affects businesses. Is it just those who develop software that find it difficult to deal with?
The differences between the GPL and BSD mean nothing to me, as far as I know. I deploy Linux and BSD freely at work, and have never heard anything that should keep me from that.
What are the sticking points that a business user should be aware of? As long as the license allows me to freely use the OS or software, why should I care about this debate?
--dingletec--
Just my 2 cents, but playing politics isn't going to help Linux, or any other software. There is nothing wrong with looking at ways in which in the GPL2 (or any other licence) could be improved. But buying into the agenda of some of the more far-out ranters and anti-capitalist nutjobs of the free software world isn't going to help anyone, and at the moment they all seem lumped together under the general heading "GPL3" On the contrary, it will make Linux less useful to a lot of folks and put off still more potential users.
Not for the first time, Linux Torvalds is applying a touch to the brakes and suggesting that a little common sense might go a long way. Or that's how I read this, anyway. I guess the ghastly Richard Stallman will just have to continue gnashing and gnuing his teeth. The Linux kernel is absolutely not his kernel.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
OK thats just the kernel being talked about. What about the rest of GNU/Linux?? Will it move to GPLv3?
I'm primarily concerned with gcc, glibc and the likes. X has its own license that I'm OK with. The rest of the apps are not critical and easily replaceable. gcc glibc and the kernel are damn hard to replace... they exist alone. Others have competitors.
I dont want any of GPLv3 in my system just as I dont want any of SCO code in my system. Maybe the final GPLv3 will be more palatable than it is now.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Free market? When it's installed along side every IE on every new box, then we will see users making a choice. Until that day, Microsoft will continue to illegally leverage their monopoly, and ensure box builders tow the party line.
"The _default_ is to not allow conversion."
/is/, the other says only what the default /isn't/.
and
"The _default_ is not to allow conversion."
have completely seperate meanings. One says what the default
'more correct' might be:
"The _default_ is to disallow conversion."
but here it is clear that "not allow" is being used as another way of saying "disallow" (for something as all-or-nothing as "allow", these are synonyms. [synophrases? whatever])
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Strange. It almost seems like these guys wrote the majority of programs for any given Linux distro.
That sweeping statement don't take into account just how vast the Free Software Directory is. Maybe you should look it over, its pretty large. OpenBSD, and many other distros/operating systems with strong philosophy have alot of code, making that statement false.
The philosopy of sharing code (whether GNU or BSD or otherwise) is only reason we have code to look at at all.
GPL2 and GPL3 seem to be completely incompatible. That means you can't take somebody elses GPL2 code released without the "or later" clause and release it under GPL3. This has two effects:
First the "or later" clauses in some parts of the linux kernel are effectively meaningless unless you are willig to rewrite the other parts from new.
Second, we will split into two incompatible GPL universes (or three if there is such thing as GPL1!) with legacy GPL2, newer GPL3 and some GPL2-or-later. And anybody can modify GPL2-or-later and release the result as GPL2-only.
Share and enjoy!
John
There's no grey area. It's recommended but optional, and linux doesn't use it.
I am trolling
http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/4/24/19
The issue of private keys, DRM, code signing and the effect of GPL V3 has been in discussion for a long time. Linus has said he might in some circumstances sign binaries, in which case you would need the private key to regenerate the signed binary.
"And since I can imaging [sic] signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can
disallow anybody else doing so."
Linus Torvalds, LKML April 2003
From what I can tell, the 'private keys' section is more about hacking hardware devices, such as the Tivo, to run homebrew code than it is about keeping code 'free'. If you have the source code, then you are free to compile and run it on any open device, you just can't run it on a Tivo, as it requires unmodified signed code.
So it seems that this provision is more about preventing those who embed OSS in their hardware from locking out homebrew code and not about open source.
No, my statement is true: Philosophy does not yield code. People yield code. I was replying to the statement that the Linux kernel is more popular with both individuals and companies because it is more flexible (from a copyright standpoint) than HURD. This is the same reason why *BSD is popular with some people and companies -- they're not bound to the more restrictive GPL.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Actually, the real source of amusement in the article is the Linux Reference Center advertorial on the page. It's sponsored by Microsoft, and the articles in the advertorial talk about the advantages of switching to Windows.
Isn't that DRM-clause anyway incompatibel with the usual security mechanisms of linux? What's the difference between DRM and file restrictions according to this licence? Both could be used to restrict my ability to view, copy, alter or execute content.
Every time something is done with the GPL we hear the same old TIRED line, "the GPL is anti business" or "this is the nail in the coffin". And yet, the GPL has allowed (no, encouraged) more corporate contributions, and allowed more corporations to benefit than any other licence.
I will sit back and watch this time as well... if history repeats, we will see V3 is the best yet.
As for Linus, he is only human and it seems he is having more difficulty not allowing emotions cloud his opinions as he ages, so his opinion of V3 carries little weight. (And how many of us are better than him?)
Jennifer Love Hewitt?
Juicy Lumpy Hamburgers?
Just Limp Humphrey?
The guy that started the topic is the same !#@&% guy that offered to relicense the linux kernel for some $50,000 not some time ago.
Jeff V. Merkey rides again!
Good catch. I never would have noticed that but it does put thing in perspective!
--MarkusQ
While I have to use IE at work, I good news is I don't get that infantile anti-IE pop-up. The bad news is I don't get anything, other than the following stern message from our internet filtering software:
Access to the site lkml.org is being denied because it is currently listed in the -adult.language- category which is being blocked according to local network access policies.
If you feel this site is listed in the incorrect category, click here to forward it for re-evaluation.
What do those Linux developers get up to?
Personally, I always find people spouting this myth amusing. Linus can do nearly anything he darn well pleases. Why don't you come out and explicitly tell Linus that he can't do something. Now THAT would be amusing. :)
Linus can quite easily convert over to GPLv3, or any other type of license if he wanted to. At any time.
He doesn't have to have to go out and contact every single developer at all. All he has to do is to make a reasonable attempt to contact developers, and to put up a public notice of his intentions. An announcement on the LKML ought to do, as well as a press release. Perhaps an announcement on a few key web sites as well. One could dig up the email addresses from what is actually there in the kernel; that's not to hard to do.
But the point is Linus DOESN'T HAVE TO contact every single developer who has code in the kernel. All he has to do is make a reasonable attempt, and a public notice.
Ever see legal notices in the paper? The same principle applies.
Anyone who wishes to not have their code relicensed can contact Linus; and that portion of the code will have to be rewritten. It's that simple. Rewriting such portions will involve some work; but it certainly can be done.
Unless that code is now patented; in which case we're all screwed. Which is why he ought to cut over. Now. You can well bet money that someone, somewhere, is at least thinking about how to shake down the Linux community this way. Heck, if SCO was smart, they'd be preparing a submarine attack this way right now.
While someone could sue to have their code not relicensed (as if that's going to happen), they would then face an uphill battle in court if the court deemed that sufficient public notice was given. In all probability, they would lose.
So yes, Linus can change to a different license any time he wishes. And this myth borders on pure FUD. IMHO, repeating this myth is detrimental to the Linux community as a whole.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
To me this just reflects a deep distrust of Richard Stallman
...he's resorting to tyranny where his past attempts to win hearts and minds have failed.
As multiple posts point out, it's more to do with the licensing minutae then a some kind of relational "trust" problem. I'm not sure where you get that, but please re-consider the facts.
and his social agenda.
His "social agenda" is at the very least partially responsible for the loads of free software and **innovation** in the computing industry. If you don't agree with his views, then there's lots of commercial software vendors with proprietary software waiting for you to buy.
Really? Failed? I've got at least three great production-class operating systems built on the Linux kernel serving pages for a big part of the Internet. (Debian, Slackware and your favorite distro)
I respect anyone who can disagree with an opinion/belief responsibly. Casting Mr. Stallman as a tyrant with a "social agenda" (damn hippie!) is flat-out propaganda and grossly irresponsible.
We have a wonderful freedom to vocally disagree in America. I just wish you and others would take that responsibility more seriously. Please consider your opinions more carefully before hitting the "submit" button.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
And yet, HURD continues. It will certainly be useful down the road. While I will not contribute to it, others (most likely from school) will. In fact, I would have to guess that HURD will grow at a rate similar to linux, since the real tools are already developed for it. The amount of work to bring HURD to the level of current Linux or *BSD is far less than what it took Linux to grow (the OSS world was far less developed).
With that said, I will be staying with Linux. I happen to prefer the license and the style.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ok, I got a question, why don't we just put a stament in there that sums it all up. "Use this, modify this, redistrubute this, but don't get greedy and close the source because without our source to begin with you would not have it, so keep it open and let other people use it too. Don't be an asshat!" I think that sums it up pretty well. :)
hello
But the clause which gives the FSF the right to revise the license and have it apply to any program released under "GPL version X or later" also states that "such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns". Doesn't that mean that adding the clause you describe would be a violation of the license?
Or am I being overly optimistic here?
So, could you enlighten us as to exactly how the structure of the FSF allows this? It's a neat conspiracy theory, but this is like saying the Republican Party of the US is somehow going to be taken over by the Democrats (or vice versa).
That in mind, I hope this offtopic to the offtopic is three lefts. Note the above post.
"Huge flaming annoying banner ads are evil work of the devil and i hate them and you should burn in hell for making me see them."
Then consider the next line:
"No it's okay because it's for Firefox and your browser sucks."
Can we maybe see a connection between this and the topic at hand, especially as regards the "linus vs. richard" speculation this is devolving in to? Because really, this is getting to the heart of people's, or possibly our perception of Linus' at least, ire with the current direction of the GPL and its creators:
Horrible bad evil things are horrible bad and evil and inexcusable, until they are done in the name of something I support, in which case it's not only not-bad but actually very-good, and here's my list of excus^H^H^H^H perfectly valid reasons why.
C.f. "slippery slope."
That which does not kill us makes us... st
Why bother with all of that, when that same "Monopoly Software Co." can convert their apps to "web apps" and use all the GPL code they want without releasing their code as GPL stands today? See Google, for example.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Take a look at the GPLv3 Draft, section 1, para 1-3:
The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source version of a work.
The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
This can be interpretted to mean that if your code is digitally encrypted, say in a source repository, and you have made changes which are specifically there, you will need to include the means to access those custom changes, which means relinquishing your private key or passcode, if that is what you use to access the source code. If you PGP encrypt your source code, you will need to release your PGP key to allow for review of code, etc.
Perhaps that is not the _intent_ of the GPLv3 draft, but it is one interpretation. The wording is too unspecific that it can be twisted or interpretted to mean you need to provide the means to de-encrypt or otherwise give access to the code. If people encrypt their code like that, that is.
It can also be interpretted to mean that if your code contains DRM bits, any in-code encryption, which requires a key/passcode/etc to compile or otherwise function fully, needs to be provided as well. Well, if you built your code with special easter eggs that are only released with your own signed key, then you would need to release your key as well. It is yet another possible interpretation.
I believe the wording is attempting to be highly encompassing. If people chose to encrypt parts of their private source code, and distribute it on a limited basis, they would, if they switched to GPLv3, need to disclose their signing keys and/or change all of their code to remove the need for the keys.
If I had hundreds of thousands of lines of code with various bits that fall under that provision, I would be a bit taken aback as well. It isn't surprising and it is hardly an unexpected response to legal wording, that by trying to be as free as possible to the community, is horribly restrictive to the individual.
It would be nice if a few IP lawyers can look at the draft independantly and see if their interpretations of the draft are all similar.
Still, it is still a draft, so hopefully, it will be updated/changed to be more specific/accurate in it's description of what needs to be released. If the current wording and interpretation IS the intended meaning and interpretation, then it is rather far reaching and may not see widespread adoption.
Widespread adoption within the FSF itself doesn't constitute widespread adoption as the code's licensing/enforcement there was placed under the management and trust of the FSF. :)
Btw, IANAL(I am not a lawyer), so the practical legal interpretation may vary greatly from a layman's interpretation.
Winged Power Photography
"Which is why HURD will never see the light of day in any substantial fashion. Philosophy doesn't yield code."
If you simply want to argue over the semantics of whether or not philosophy yields code or people yield code, read no further; I have nothing to say to you. The point of this post realtes to substance, not semantics. (And before you stop reading, ask yourself this: what is philosophy without people?) Your second statement is clearly a generalization you're drawing from your first, and in incorrect one, at that. As GP alluded to, the GNU in GNU/Linux is all the utilities you use on the command line, up to and including the command line itself, and is under the copyright of the FSF. I haven't done recent SLOC counts on GNU vs. Linux, but I would be surprised if they weren't at least comparable - I'd expect that GNU actually has produced substantially more source code (that is used all the time by all manner of users and developers) than the Linux kernel itself these days. Back in 2002, RedHat 7.1 was studied and though the kernel was the largest single body of source (~2.5 million lines), there are GNU programs all over that quickly outstrip the kernel in sheer volume of source: gcc alone is huge (~900k lines), but emacs (~600k lines) and glibc (~600k lines) are both quite large as well. Those are only three GNU programs, the directory of FSF software contains (as an estimate) hundreds, including the Hurd itself.
Indeed, philosophy is a manner of viewing of the world and is expressed not by some abstract theoretical paper you write, but in how you choose to live and contribute your work to others. In this sense, philosophy is very much responsible for yielding code - do you honestly think that without the philosophical buy-in of its contributors, free software would be anything today?
I think it worth mentioning that the Free Software philosophy is fundamentally against big business and arguably anti-capitalist. Thus, RMS is labeled a Socialist, and from all appearances, he should be proud of that classification. Of course, the cards are currently stacked against RMS and his group, and so it IS a war (for him).
Open Source (the whole "open-source can beat out closed-source for the market") is a bit more pragmatic and fundamentally is willing to work within a capitalist system. Hence, why large corporations can push OSS and even pay for development of less glamorous, but important, pieces of OSS.
I'd say the Open Source philosophy is more realistic and definitely more interesting than the Free Software philosophy. So, I'd side more with Linus and point out that (for servers anyway), Linux has definitely proved itself and browsers like Firefox (which I use all the time and highly recommend) have gained significance and interest. Also, as far as free goes, lots of people use Apache and Java so they must be doing something right. Furthermore, I and the millions of others who are currently running a Microsoft OS don't have to be flamed because we're locked into "the evil empire." After all, if free software is indeed better than its commercial counterpart, than maybe RMS et al. should stop GREASING THE TRACKS via a newer restrictive GPL v3 license.
I'd compare RMS within the FSF/OSS genre to Pat Robertson within the religious right or Michael Moore for the far left. They need to be replaced as spokesmen for their specific agendas. Oh, and take that pencil-drawn Gnu and destroy it if you want to be taken seriously...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
of course "no conversion" should be the default -- as otherwise who the hell knows what they would be agreeing to in advance of the writting of a later version.
Only an idiot woudl do that and open source developers are not idiots.
I heard DogDude has plenty of viruses from fucking dogs. Apparently he gets a pop-up, then doesn't want to stop. Then later it hurts when he has to whiz.
It's juvenile and wrong, but he just can't help himself.
When GNU stuff uses GPLv3, it will be incompatible with Linux for DRM applications. So is someone going to rewrite GNU code and put it under a less restrivctive license? It would be ironic(?) since Stallman started GNU because of restrictions placed on him by unix vendors.
Vote for Pedro
The problem with this part of the GPLv3 is that signed-code requirements are hardware dependent. If you say that the requirement only applies if the only hardware platform available requires signed code, then a Tivo-like company could easily dodge this requirement altogether. i.e., by saying that modified GPL tivo code can be run on a non-tivo generic PC, without a signature.
So, no, you don't have the copyrights tonor does Kernighan or Richie. In the case of software, there are further exceptions (both in Brasilian law and in the 17USC) that the program must not be the only expression nor a most obvious expression of some functionality (like the hello.c above).
If I scrabble in a piece of paper napkin, this phrase is not a protected work.
Maybe the rendering of the phrase is (the way I write the letters, the "font" I use, the way I arrange the words -- provided they are a "creation of [my] spirit"), but not the phrase per se, because it doesn't have enough "content" to be copyrightable. Ah, descriptions of facts or things are not copyrightable, too -- unless the descriptions themselves have "content" as "creation of spirit".
Got it?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
The first paragraph can be interpretted as: DRM cannot be included in GPLv3 licensed code which allows people to collect data on people and encrypt it. DRM cannot be used to restrict content or operation of code in any way, if the code is covered under this license.
The second paragraph can be interpretted as: If your code or content is licensed under the GPLv3draft, you CANNOT use DRM to restrict or otherwise encrypt the code, content, or use of the software and product if it prevents the complete access to the code and/or functionality of the code and by extension, the content. If it employs DRM, then the code/keys/etc required for full functionality of the product must be released to allow for proper operation of the code/product.
Think about the impact of that for a minute.
Think about DVD disks. They use DRM. Think about iTunes. They use DRM. Think about password protected, remote site authenticated digital video streams(online video sales, digital satellite, etc). They all use DRM to restrict the access of the content to specific hardware, regions, zones, people, and times.
Basically, under GPLv3draft, DMCA is invalidated by requirement of the practical availability of the keys, passwords, and access to the underlying encryption code. So if your DRM project is licensed under the GPLv3draft, it essentially becomes worthless DRM. Under the provisions of section 3, you would need to release the keys of all customers as distributing it with only limited passwords for specific users would prevent/restrict people from distributing the code and using it for the content for which it was intended to display.
Perhaps that is a somewhat loose interpretation of that paragraph, but the paragraph itself is worded somewhat loosely. But once again... that's the point, isn't it? To broaden the definition so that more freedom is attained. Once again, at the cost of the individual freedom/right of the developer/company/IP owner.
So, yes. In effect, it DOES require the handing over of keys if one adopts the GPLv3draft, as it is worded right now.
Winged Power Photography
Everyone knows that the odd numbers are under active development. Linus is just waiting until the next stable release, GPLv4.
--Ajay
Y'know, guys, they're still looking for feedback on the GPL v3. It's still in beta, unfinished.
:)
So by all means, if you have good ideas, submit them to the FSF
Submit GPL v3 comments here.
A third work can be lisenced under any lisence, but only with the permission of all the copyright holders (that would be you, the orignal developer and the developer of the third version.
I was working in absentia of a new permission from all the copyright holders, because (as you said in the next paragraph) the permission from all the copyrights holders is next to impossible to have for the linux kernel -- and, to boot, the original work's (which is Linux 0.01) copyright holder said he won't give his permission.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
OK, so it appears Linus has decided that Linux will not be converted over to GPL v3. Lots of people have given philosophical opinions about this, but what if we step back and look at it from a purely practical point of view? What are the costs of converting to GPL v3, and what benefits would it provide to the Linux maintainers and users?
Possible benefits:
That's pretty much it as far as the positives for Linux, as far as I can tell. Now, what about the negatives?
So what is the bottom line? Converting offers basically no major advantage. GPL v2 is just as good as GPL v3 for the purposes of Linux. And, converting is a huge hassle. So, rather than looking at why Linus isn't converting the kernel over, why don't we ask this question: why should it be converted over? There doesn't seem to be any kind of compelling advantage.
My guess is that the same thing is going to apply to lots of other projects. Converting is a great big hassle, and it doesn't offer any big advantage, so people just won't bother.
Yes, copyright covers expression of ideas -- but not regardless of how lame the expression itself is.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
If the kernel project guys really do not want GPLv.3-released code in their product because they consider it to be virally too restrictive, then fine. That is their prerogative and they don't need to include it. However, if the author of some highly-desired code really wants v.3 and doesn't care if it lands in the official kernel source tree, then the contrapositive applies: they can't force him to change it, either.
Remember, the GPL in its various forms is not restrictive; it is permissive. It starts with the default copyright restrictions allowing no copying of the code. It then generously gives permission to copy and use it while only asking for a few small acts of good behaviour in return.
many jurisdictions (mine included) prohibit software patents.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Oh freakin' jesus, this isn't about lines of code quantity comparison -- The whole point is about the fact that there are a lot of people who WON'T contribute to certain projects simply based on the GPL license. Given your comparison of the Linux kernel and other GNU stuff, if HURD is just as "GNU" as gcc and glibc, then why is HURD next to nowhere in the open source world? Where are the droves of people moving away from Linux to HURD?
BTW, code quantity is in no way an indicator of *quality*. On top of that, some of the projects you mentioned are much older than the Linux kernel. There's multiple metrics you must use if you are going to draw such conclusions. Emacs could be 50 million lines of pure GNU GPL code -- It's still a shitty editor.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
If the original author released code under v.2 and it does not contain such a clause allowing re-licensing under another license, then slapping a new license on it would be nothing less than stealing it. Remember, it still belongs to the author. He has not relinquished ownership by licensing it. If the current license sticks, then that is likely his intention. Maybe emailing him and asking him to re-release it under another license would work. But it is not public domain and it is not allowed for downstream developers to break the contract. But beyond such a clause allowing the "or later" GPL, changing the terms of the license is precisely what the GPL forbids. If you wanted GPL-only, it would need to be a different product, not a derivative.
You got it. Nice catch.
FOSS, GNU and Linux is about the right to choose, a right wich is very limited outside the FOSS community. This right is both the end users right to choose what s/he like and the developers right to develop what s/he likes and release it under the license s/he likes.
I can't see why Linus should not have the right to choose the licens under wich he will release his code.
--
I am probably just an old idealist but so is RMS.
I support adoption and congrats to Stallman -- A++++.
He forgot "fast shipment, complete satisfaction" part though
One is also a split infinitive, which many people consider bad grammar and therefore not a real option in speaking.
Incidentally, the license for HURD and Linux is exactly the same, except that Linux doesn't have the "or later version" clause (which, if you contribute to either you can choose whether to include on your code or not).
If the only thing "holding HURD back" is really the assignment of copyright to GNU, then perhaps the way to move forward is to create a non-GNU fork (which doesn't require people to assign copyright). In fact, if someone did that they could even immediately merge all the usable code they can find from the Linux kernel, vastly improving the poor (or so I've heard) driver situation on HURD.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That sweeping statement don't take into account just how vast the Free Software Directory is. Maybe you should look it over
Maybe you should look at how many pacakges in FSF Directory are non-GPLed.
Why, it does absolutely everything that the Hurd does, and therefore is entirely Hurd compliant!
His "social agenda" is at the very least partially responsible for the loads of free software and **innovation** in the computing industry.
He coined a phrase to describe what lot's of people were already doing; what people had done, and would do in the future, with or without him. He wrote a restrictive license to forward an agenda. Before anyone spazs out over the word "restrictive", the GPL is restrictive, it has to be to achieve it's goal. It is restrictive but with benevolent intentions.
Torvalds and Stallman - sounds like a law firm
While I agree that obligatory DRM is bad, and I certainly won't buy anything that implements it (get yer region-free DVD players here!) I think you are overstating the case a bit.
The "worst tyranny" would more likely be one that has uniformed soldiers rape children to death in front of your wife so she will tell them where you are hiding.
(bah, major typos)
(remind self NOT to forget to proofread just because of an interruption)
I wonder how many lines of my post you read before deciding the rest of it couldnt possibly have brought up that issue.
/did/ bring up that issue. It offered an argument both in support of that mindset, and one against it.
:)
Unfortunatly for your post, the rest of my post
"Off-Topic" is a classification, not a rating. What's with this "off-topic -1" crap?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
> People yield code. I was replying to the statement that the Linux kernel is more popular
> with both individuals and companies because it is more flexible (from a copyright
> standpoint) than HURD.
No.
Linux is more popular than HURD because at certain critical points in history it was "working" and "ready" for definitions of "working" and "ready" that could not really be applied to HURD at the time. Basically, Linux was in the right place at the right time. HURD never showed up to the party, and there was a licensing lawsuit connected with BSD at a particularly critical point in time which left it just a little behind in just the wrong ways at just the wrong time, allowing Linux to get "ahead" in terms of mindshare and popularity in the developer community. Consequently, there was a several-month time window, at a particularly important time in history (right about when a lot of college undergrads were first getting net access) when if you wanted a freely-available, freely-modifiable, freely-redistributable operating system, Linux was _the_ obvious choice. That gave it a leg up, got a lot of people involved with improving it, and made it the leading and most popular free OS. Nothing has yet managed to unseat it from that position.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the FSF's policies haven't hampered HURD development. They likely have. What I'm saying is that that is not the key important reason why Linux is ahead of HURD (both in terms of popularity and development cycle). The key reason is because Linus had working, usably complete code at an important time when the FSF (in terms of a kernel) did not.
If the timing had worked out differently, the HURD might have been in the leading position, in spite of the FSF's (admittedly rather strict) copyright policies. It is notable that a number of the FSF's *other* projects, despite said policies, are leading implementations in their respective niches, because those projects were finished to the degree they needed to be and working to the degree they needed to be when they needed to be. Emacs for instance was there enough and working enough (for _most_ of the folks who wanted an Emacs, albeit not for Lucent) that XEmacs is just another, somewhat less popular alternative, rather than completely eclipsing Gnu Emacs as Linux has done to HURD.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I believe that the TiVo Series II does this to prevent the end user from hacking their device even though the device is built on Linux. Hacking the Series I devices generally requires adding a serial cable so that commands can be entered on a standard bash shell to load new software. However, the Series II TiVo's will fail to work if you change anything on the device because it checks the software signature before it will allow it to work. So, hacking the TiVo Series II requires a much more involved hack such as killhdinitrd to fool the TiVo's signature self checks. GPL v. 3 seems to be attempting to prevent this sort of thing.
One point to consider is that it is not necessarily the case that TiVo is trying to control the software, but rather to provide some assurance that their device is not a tool for stealing copyrighted material, which ultimately amounts to the same thing.
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Linus ought to announce dual licencing GPL2 / GPL3 right now. That way the decision could be revisited in 5 years time. Then the landscape may have changed and maybe GPL3 will start looking a good idea, and the change can be made. But inaction now will make that tricky if not impossible later.
Opinions are like assholes. And you sir, are nothing more than an opinionated asshole.
Do something more constructive with your time like reading a book or slashing your wrists.
But stop spamming with your idiocy.
If the 'only' definition of "Linux" is 'the kernel as released by Linus Torvalas' such a 'linux' product does not exist...at least when you talk about RedHat or Suse.
So if Linus doesn't want GPL3 - he is only ONE PART of the Linux Kernel group. If others want GPL3 and they are added by RedHat/SuSE that will mean 'Linux' will be goverened by GPL3.
The development model of 'develop the kernel and toss it over the wall to the OS people' assures a GPLv3'd Linux.
All that has to happen is some new feature is written with GPLv3 that becomes loved/added on by others and the DISTROS pick up and use.
That will make the defacto 'linux kernel' (the one most people end up using) GPLv3.
That's not a gnu. That's actually a quite faithful portrait of Stallman himself.
Also, Linux has a better name. HURD sounds retarded.
The Farewell Tour II
Licensing. It's allways been thing to make one quiver and shudder.
Why can't those great logicians publish an UML-Diagram, instead of such a hard to read, for legal purposes only bloated piece of text called a 'license'. Hey, wouldn't that mean 'revolution' in the true sense of the word. The legal world picking up UML ! People, just think about it.
I stopped using microsoft based software because they slap you with a stomach punching EULA. Like any other software company does actually, nothing personal as such.
- views and opinions expressed in the afformentioned text are entirely personal and not related to this website at all, likely to be frustracted expressions -
free dom(inion) - free energy - free your mind - whee!
The driver situation is a bit different as the Hurd runs in user space, so it does not care about device drivers. Those are all in the underlying microkernel (GNU Mach currently), which has not been written by the FSF in the first place and also uses Linux drivers (though very outdated ones). So Linux code is being used were it makes sense, maybe not taking it to extremes though.
Michael
The FSF is basically about making programs free as in "self-awareness isn't punished." Just my rose(c) colored view of course. And beer, something about beer and swinging. Good of you all to mention bankruptcy, court/corporate/national-council polypoly. unification (haha) and the alternate workout involving a squat/lunge-clean; assurance for beer and swinging is forgone now. All but the bits where a code section requires insurance as well as registration, VAT in kind, and compliance filings. I think the 'spirit of the agreement' bit in the copyright represents well for the GPL here, a sort of 'free as in go hedge your own mausoleum, I'll have none of it.' Some other kudos for defense of crypto are due as well, but it's not a bad start. XML groves, version management and DRM attempt to contain complexity in various ways; exposition, fitness, and proxy. It's an easy claim that proxy is the skill of free entities that is least well civilized, and that some NP-incomplete phenomena are going to be proxyable. Certainly it's going to be handy to have a more staid object do some free decisions on what's slave trading and what's merely Craigslisting some computing nanogoo. If a RegEx Coach (okay, -the-) can be made, how about a GPLv4 one? That would make it say, an XXXSSL app?
I just wanted to say that I appreciate the intelligent discussion here. Yours and ultranova's comments (on a different thread above) have helped clairify the arguments here for me; as well as making it more clear to me that a process can indeed be set up to convert to a different license; and that it's not the bug-a-boo that the original poster (like many others) are making.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
HURD rhimes with TURD.
Is the kernel really GPL? In my understanding if the kernel was really GPL then anything that links to it should be GPL, as so on. I see many commercial applications making use of kernel, close-source graphic card drivers for instance, and that would be a violation of GPL wouldn't it?
You do realize that HURD is actually older than Linux? All of the userspace things were done and they were "almost done" the kernel when Linus beat them to it even though microkernels are supposed to be faster to develop. They are still to this day "almost done". Hurd's problem is not the License or development structure. It's a fundimental design problem with their kernel.