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.""
Linux is licensed under GPL v2. In order to move to GPL v3, v4, v99 etc, EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR must accept this. Practically impossible.
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
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/01 /17/1454213&from=rss
DRM clause I guess?
"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."
http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft
Nope! That's why copyright problems are so much more of a concern for the Linux kernel than they are for, say, HURD (because for HURD the copyright has to be assigned to the Free Software Foundation).
It's also why the Linux kernel is much more popular among developers than HURD (because people and companies can contribute to it and still keep their copyright).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Don't contributors assign copyright to some type of Linux foundation?
No. Linux kernel contributors retain their own copyright. This is frequently considered to be a good thing, as it means that no single group has copyright over everything, which means that no single group can change the license to e.g. BSD and start selling a proprietary version of Linux.
How can code released under the GPL be relicensed at all, even GPLv3?
1) Because the GPL license can optionally include the statement that it's covered by the GPL and/or any later version.
2) Because a copyright holder can relicense, dual-license and in general put any conditions he or she wants on their copyrighted work, including multiple different sets of conditions (licenses).
What you are asking is akin to saying "If someone lends a book to me on a set of conditions, how can they be allowed to lend it to someone else on different ones?".
If it can be, why can't I take it and license it with a BSD-style or completely closed source license?
Because you don't own the copyright.
He misinterpreted part of the GPLv3. The private key section says that if private keys are required for the code to function (in other words, your program will only load signed code) than you must make available a means to generate the signed code. The theory here is that certain hardware devices (*cough*TiVo*cough*) use GPLed software, but make it impossible to actually modify and run that software on their hardware device. In order to allow people to make changes and actually use those changes, you have to make available any private keys required to make the code actually run.
So if Mr. Torvalds has a private key that he uses to sign code, he is under no obligation to release that key to the public assuming that an end user can build and run the code without requiring the private key. You only have to release your private key if a third-party build of the software will not run without being signed by that key.
Now, another common misinterpretation that came up at the GPLv3 launch was that this meant that if you had set up your system to require signed code that you would have to make your private key available. This isn't the case. The only requirement is that a third party must be able to build and run the system without your private key. If this requires them to generate their own private key, that's perfectly acceptable.
If a GPLv3ed program cannot run without a specific private key, that private key must be made available. That's all the license says. Developers are not required to disclose private keys that they use to sign code.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
[RMS says] anyone using closed-source software (even in niches where no free equivalent exists) is guilty of immorality
That's simply not true, and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of RMS' position.
What he says is: "If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have."
Which is a different thing altogether.
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.