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.""

Comments

What v3 does he mean?

[Renegade Lisp]

GPLv3 hasn't even been released yet. The public discussion on what it will be like only started a few days ago. And yet Linus seems to be categorically certain that he won't even consider using that license? There must be a lot of bad feelings between him and the FSF (not that I couldn't understand this from some of the recent events, but I always thought Linus was a very diplomatic and friendly character who would not be easily offended).

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?

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[Renegade Lisp]

Linux is licensed under GPL v2. In order to move to GPL v3, v4, v99 etc, EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR must accept this. Practically impossible.

Yeah but that is not the reason Linus is giving. He doesn't like it (and he mentions that bizarre private key issue as a reason for that), and so he doesn't even get to the point where he starts wondering whether it would be practically possible to change licenses. At least that's the way I read his post.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that he is confusing the private keys used to prove authenticity of code (usually binary) or media for restrictive purposes (DRM) and keys that prove authenticity of code (source) to protect against modifications.

The lack of keys in the first case will cause the software to not work. The lack of keys in the second case would cause warnings at some point stating that there's no guarrantee that Linus actually wrote the code that you've just uploaded to an FTP site, whiich would be safely ignored by anyone who was expecting you to post a modified version of the code. In this case, there's nothing stopping you from signing it with your own keys to prove that this is the version you modified.

If the GPL v3 is vague between these two types, then it definately needs rewording.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[lawpoop]

"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."

This simple, clear statement should be at the beginning. I think if you argue about this in the future, you would help your case to lead with this, and then back it up afterwards.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[drakaan]

The article you linked to didn't say that Linus has no problem with DRM in the kernel. It said that he has no problem with people using the kernel for whatever purpose they like, which is a vastly different viewpoint.

It sounds like his gripe with the GPLv3 is that it is imposing restrictions on what modifications or contributions can be made, which is not the same agnostic view as in previous versions.

The idealist (RMS) and the engineer (Linus) are definitely at a point of contention on this issue...it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[ZoneGray]

It's one thing to assign copyright to FSF, quite another to assign it a random non-profit organization. FSF has some history and widespread recognition, and one can be reasonably confident that they'll survive and remain true to their vision.

On the other hand, if somebody set up a non-profit to create the nextest bestest portal application, there's a real chance that the non-profit org could go bankrupt, regardless of the sincerity of their intention. Or the org could undergo a leadership change and a change of philosophy. If you had assigned your code to them, it could easily wind up in a proprietary commercial application. The GPL would protect existing releases, but anybody who held all the copyrights could update and re-release under a proprietary license.

Even if the terms of assignation were written to preclude this, such provisions might not survive bankruptcy.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"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."

Whos to say what will or will not run? They give all their code back, but their hardware is not even close to related to the GPL. You can run every mod to the software you want on your own hardware just fine, but to just let anyone run their own forks on their hardware is far past the scope of the software license. It sounds like a good idea, but it would really lead to a state we don't want to have for the next 10+ years. Requiring signed executables is a good security practice and keeps people from flashing their devices into paperweights, if they were required to open their keys nobody would even use them so it becomes a nonissue. Why would you bother to check a signature if anyone could sign it? It just sounds like rms is being pissy and trying to get his ball back cause someone is playing a better game with it than he was.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[advocate_one]

correct, the proposed V3 will put limitations on fields of endeavour and effectively breach Freedom 0

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

basically, V3 is saying you can use the software in any way you want, but you can't add DRM into it for your own program that you want to distribute... because it would curtail your users from using that program for any purpose... but this restriction is restricting your own use... arghhh... logical paradox loop... brain hurtz...

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[lasindi]

The idealist (RMS) and the engineer (Linus) are definitely at a point of contention on this issue...it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I agree the general point of your post, but I just wanted to add that this "idealist/engineer" contrast is slightly inaccurate. In fact, I think Linus once said something like "RMS is the great philosopher, I am the engineer" (correct me if I'm wrong). RMS sure talks a lot about philosophy and Linus does not, but that doesn't mean that RMS isn't as much of an engineer. He's responsible for some of the most important and popular programs out there, such as GCC, GDB and Emacs. So, IMHO, it should be something more like "RMS is the idealist engineer, while Linus is the pragmatic engineer." In other words, RMS does work adhering to a strict philosophy, while Linus is more concerned with just getting the work done.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[IpalindromeI]

It's not really a paradox when you look closer:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The GPL has always been focused on the user, not the developer. It certainly is no great benefit for a developer who wants to use some GPL code to have extra restrictions placed on him. Those restrictions are there so that users cannot get locked out of their own software. They are not there so that the code remains available for developers to play with.

Although I think it's a bit extreme to put what amounts to usage guidelines (anti-guidelines?) into the license, it does fall in line with their intention to protect freedoms of the users, at the expense of freedoms of the developers.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[turbidostato]

"*Future* versions can be released under a different license, but that version is always available under the license it was released under."

That's thin ice. Is not "future versions", but "different copies".

Say I managed Linus to accept my (gpl-ed) contribution to the kernel, like that: /* This is my contribution v1 to the kernel and it is, of course GPL-ed*/

Then the *copy* (not the version) that goes into the kernel gets gpl-ed, thus all other copies from that copy get under the gpl too. But since I'm the author and copyright holder of my contribution, I can take a different copy (neither the one I passed into the kernel nor a copy from that copy) and license it any way I see fit. So no, I won't need to develop a new version of my contribution: /* This is my much embettered contribution v2 NOT to go into the kernel */
I can go with a *new* copy of my first version.

By the way, that's how companies like Troll Tech manage to double-license their code by taking copyright ownership of all the codebase, and that's how, technically, the FSF could produce tomorrow a proprietary version of, say, GCC 2.95, to name an obviously old version of that codebase (of course, under the asumption that GCC is truly an FSF copyright-holded piece of code). That wouldn't affect your already gpl-granted gcc copy in any way.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[turbidostato]

"Since the FSF is the only entity capable of modifying or releasing future versions of the GPL (as stated in the GPL), we have to trust they will not tamper with the spirit of the license."

No, we don't need to trust this. You can't take a paragraph from a contract and say "that's all with it". You need to see it in context.

Now: what does point 9 say?
"9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."

You see, if the FSF publishes a new version of dissimilar spirit (of course, that should have to be decieded under a tribunal on the worst case) that would be license violation, thus void and unforceable. So if you say "this is distributed under the GPLv2 or later" that's not what it seems, a blank note, since any later GPL version can't be "just anything" but only something similar in spirit (which is quite clearly stated in the preamble) or it won't be a valid relicenseable candidate; at the very least this reasonement would give you a solid position in court, wich is neither more neither less than if you had to fight against any inane corporation that just took your code away.

Don't see how this is a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Huh

[bhirsch]

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?

DRM, private keys

[everphilski]

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.

Re:DRM, private keys

[mrchaotica]

RMS make the license more restrictive, too restrictive...

The fundamental intent of the license hasn't changed. The only thing this does is close the loophole whereby vendors could technically release source code that runs on their device, but if anyone actually tried to exercise their rights under the GPL by modifying the code (i.e. the entire point of it being Free Software in the first place) the device would refuse to run the code because the checksum/key wouldn't match. The GPL v.3 just adds text explicitly saying that device makers must allow this, where it was only implied (i.e. without legal weight) before.

Linus does not trust Stallman

[cryfreedomlove]

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.

Re:Linus does not trust Stallman

[Concern]

Tyranny? The guy doesn't have the greatest social skills around, but then again who does? Can we really say "Tyranny?"

I wasn't aware the FSF was a failure either.

Why on earth loathe the guy? I feel like I missed something.

Re:Linus does not trust Stallman

[fitten]

I'm with you on this. I distruct Richard Stallman for the same reasons. I personally think he's gone off on a side road of his original mission. Originally, it was to provide a bunch of software that was open to all and protected by copyright. Now, it seems his mission is to attempt to destroy anything that isn't open to all and protected in the ways he wants to define it. The first is setting up a safe haven for intellectual ideas and the like. The second is waging a war. I don't want a war and have no time for it. I prefer to live and let live and have no problem with OSS and proprietary software coexisting. Stallman no longer wants to coexist so I've not supported his views for some time.

Re:Linus does not trust Stallman

[starseeker]

"Now, it seems his mission is to attempt to destroy anything that isn't open to all and protected in the ways he wants to define it."

I rather doubt that. I think he is trying to fight the creation of an environment where free software is either illegal to run or technically impossible to run. Both are quite possible. After all, what good is software with no hardware to run it on? Stallman is right to worry about that point.

Stallman has ALWAYS considered non-free software immoral. He is "leading by example," so to speak. The problem is the hardware side is more difficult to handle, since fab equipment for chips is not a simple or inexpensive proposition.

I don't like the GFDL because of its invariant sections (primarily) and so in that regard I disagree with the approach he and the FSF have taken, but on the whole they seem to be facing up to some very unplesant possibilities and trying to put roadblocks across their ever being implemented. I'm reminded of two Lord of the Rings quotes:

"It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two."

"Those without swords can still die upon them."

Stallman is doing exactly what he has always done - respond to the threats as they become apparent. His approach to patents is another step in the same direction.

To paraphrase a sig I saw somewhere: "it's only paranoia if they AREN'T actually out to get you." Like security, license writers should be paranoid about threats to their intent. It's just too expensive to try hashing things out in court.

Re:I don't get it...

[Concern]

OK, I guess I see where the confusion comes from, but it still seems just like confusion. How on earth could this clause require Linus to release his private keys? There is no DRM in linux. No encryption or authorization codes are required to install and/or execute the work, and no decryption codes are necessary to access or unseal... you get the idea.

Is Linus on crack?

Re:Well, this is how it goes:

[LurkerXXX]

Which would be the dumbest thing to do, ever. Who's to say whoever is in charge of 'making' the GPL vXXX doesn't add in all sorts of nasty things that an original author might not like. What if they release it as a horribly restrictive license? What if they open it up to being as open as the BSD license? Who knows what some other group might change the license to in the future. Licensing your code under a license another group could change at a whim is dumb. Really, really dumb.

Which is why HURD will never see the light of day

[Megaweapon]

in any substantial fashion. Philosophy doesn't yield code.

Re:Refusing contributions?

[ralatalo]

This has been said before and it doesn't just affect the Linux Kernel...

If someone has released software under a previous version of the GNU Public license and they did NOT include the clause allowing relicencing under a later version of the GPL then you can NOT combine it with GPL version 3 code.

The suggestions were to contact the copyright owners and see if they will agree to re-licence the original code, or for you dual license YOUR code so that it could be used under either license.

Now, for the Linux Kernel, I was much more involved back in the 1991 time frame, don't recall any contributions that I would consider noteworthy, but in those days it was very common to see un-attributed patchs for various things. Don't know if you could track down all of the copyright owners from the very early days. Supposing (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise) that Linus knows (including then current contact infomation) who generated all of the initial contributions which were adopted into the main kernel. He (or someone) would need to track then all down (including the next of kin of any who have died) to get them to agree to a change of license. 1991 is 14 years ago... think of all the people you traded e-mails with even 10 years ago and ...try tracking them down.

Re:Maybe Linus doesn't LIKE what GPL3 requires?

[mpcooke3]

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.

heh. That depends on what you mean by free:

A) Free as in free to do what you like with. eg, GPLv2 is more "free" in this sense because businesses have more "freedom" to DRM or patent encumber software under this license.

B) GPLv3 has more restrictions in place to guarantee that software licensed under it is not encumbered by patents or DRM restrictions. Thus it guarantees that DRM and patent restrictions don't restrict people "freedom" to use the software.

BSD style is more free in terms of (A) and less free in terms of (B). For example I am "Free" to contribute secretly patented code to your BSD project and then take you to court for patent infringement when you distribute said software. Is that a freedom you intended to grant me or would you actually have preferred to use a more restrictive license after all?

Re:I don't get it...

[photon317]

Linus clearly plans for the Linux kernel to support DRM in the future if hardware and future content seems to demand it. Has has no qualms about supporting DRM, as long as it's done "right". When and if DRM comes to the kernel, those provisions of the GPL could have serious consequences for Linux, perhaps even making it illegal to realistically use Linux on the DRM hardware it was designed to support.

Re:Why trust anyone?

[Jason Hood]

This whole argument about GPLv3 is moot anyway. Why on earth would anyone want to relicense? Its like upgrading software that works just fine the way it is. I think Linus made the right call - There is no reason to promote a relicensing of the kernel. In fact there is no reason why anyone would.

Not many people license under the GPL anymore (compared to 3-5 years ago). Most use dual BSD/Apache style licensing now. This latest "update" to the GPL is pushing more companies away from OSS, not closer. I know my company wants nothing to do with GPL but instead dual licenses their OSS projects.

The linux kernel depends on corporate sponsership in a variety of ways. I think if Linus could reset the license, it too would have used something other than GPL.

Good call Linus, and keep up the good work!

Same old

[John Jamieson]

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?)

Re:Fear Uncertainty Doubt

[mpapet]

To me this just reflects a deep distrust of Richard Stallman
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. ...he's resorting to tyranny where his past attempts to win hearts and minds have failed.
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.

cost vs. benefits

[adrianmonk]

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:

• GPL v3 prohibits DRM. Does this really make a difference with Linux? Linux doesn't have DRM features anyway, so what does it matter what the license says? I suppose it might prohibit a few things that could be done on top of Linux using DRM, and that might be good, but it seems like a minor effect, so at best this has a minor positive effect in favor of a cause which isn't directly related to the central purpose of Linux.
• Keeping up to date. Yes, I suppose there is some small benefit in being on the latest version of the GPL just to avoid being out of date, but personally I reject the idea that everybody ought to always be on the latest version of everything. You should use what works.
• Make Richard Stallman happy. Doesn't seem like a major goal of Linux.

That's pretty much it as far as the positives for Linux, as far as I can tell. Now, what about the negatives?

• Redefinition of "user". As I understand it, GPL v3 says if you are using something over the network, you're still a user, and if that software is modified, it's no longer a private modification and the source to the changes has to be made available. This would appear to mean that if someone is running a public web server on a Linux system, they will now have to make any of their changes to Linux public. That's unlikely to happen, but it could affect some sites in that they wouldn't be able to upgrade and bring their changes forward. Probably a minor issue, though.
• Copyrights. As others have said, Linus doesn't hold the copyrights; the contributors do. So it's a huge hassle to get that all converted to GPL v3.

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.

Re:How to force disclosure of private keys

[_xeno_]

Nice try, but it wouldn't work. You don't have legal rights to Linus' key. Section 12 states that if you cannot legally meet the obligations of the license (in this case, giving out Linus' key), you cannot distribute the code at all.

Since you can't force Linus to give up his key (it's under his copyright, and there's no obligation for him to give it up under the GPLv3), you simply can't distribute your embedded device to anyone with the GPLv3ed software included. Doing so would be a violation of the GPLv3.

The only time that you would have to give up a key is if you distribute the code in such a way that a key is required for custom modifications to work. Trying to do so using a key you don't have rights to falls prey to Section 12, meaning you can't distribute the software at all.

The right to choose...

[Hymer]

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.

Re:Which is why HURD will never see the light of d

[jonadab]

> 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.