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?
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.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
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.
People still using Internet Exlorer are really annoying.
Yes, that code is freely available at http://www.explorerdestroyer.com/
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??
What a load of steaming excrement this is. I don't think I've heard a stupider statement about the GPL even from a Microsoft spokesperson.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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?
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
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 bet this is true for linux source code as well.
No, this is not true for the linux source code. As pointed out several times already, linux has always been released under GPLv2 only. The following text is from the COPYING file:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
A quick check at http://lxr.linux.no/source/COPYING reveals that this was added sometime beween 2.2.26 and 2.4.18, i.e. this was decided a long time ago and is not just a reaction to the forthcomming version 3.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
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
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
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.
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?
OK, lets put this differently, looking at your other comments. Since you don't really state what's wrong here...
DRM isn't a reasonable business model. It is a business model that relies on someone reaching into the equipment I own with their grimy little fingers and telling me what I can and can't do with it.
For example, there is no way that mod chips should be illegal. If I want to muck about with the internal workings of a device I own and make it do something else, that should be perfectly OK.
As Vernor Vinge so eloquently stated it in 'Deepness in the Sky'... (this is a paraphrase, since I don't have the book in front of me) "The worst tyrannies are the ones that require some piece of code in every single device.". It don't matter none if that peice of code is put there by a corporation and it's continued functioning in my box is propped up by stupid laws, or if that piece of code is directly required by the government. The end result is basically the same.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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?
Insightful?
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.
How does it sabotage anything? Businesses can continue to use software under GPL v2, Apache License, MIT Licence etc.
What a rude awakening the GPL3 has the potential to foster, as firms go fleeing back to closed source alternatives in order to comply.
Bizarre. Why would anyone 'flee' to a closed source alternative? If someone decides to rerelease their software as GPL v3, then the business can just fork the GPL v2 version and continue adapting it and using it as normal.
You appear to be under the impression that the GPL v3 is automatically going to change the face of the world's GPL software as opposed to being an additional license (one of many) that people can *choose* from. Just as the 'business friendly' LGPL didn't kill off the GPL v2, neither will the DRM restricted GPL v3 kill off the GPL v2 for those that need to live with DRM.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
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
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
Personally, I have no problem with DRM, as long as it is correctly applied, and it is an optional feature for me to obtain content.
Bad DRM: Evil crap done to music CD's to cripple them on anything resembling a CD-ROM drive.
Good DRM: FairPlay on the iPod, (or for that matter, the DRM on most MP3 Players). Sure, the DRM scheme itself may be a restrictive PITA, but it is optional. If I don't want to muck about with FairPlay, I don't have to use it. The device will accept plain old MP3's just fine.
As long as the DRM is not sneaked in, and the terms not stupid, and there is an alternate (although perhaps more expensive) means of obtaining the content without DRM, it is a perfectly acceptable business model in my eyes.
SirWired
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Some other copyright holders in the kernel have a different policy:
while some other does not specify a version of GPL at all (like the xfs code by SGI).When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
All businesses should be possible with free software, not just the ones the FSF likes. It's called freedom. Similarly, the user should be free to use whatever software he/she likes, regardless of whether it has DRM.
Amazing magic tricks
You are actually proving my point with your sigfile.
DRM makes the police state not required, all that is required is a tiny piece of software that users may opt in or out of installing.
You may not choose to use an app that contains DRM. I do choose to use them (iTunes being one). What sense does it make for the FREE SOFTWARE foundation to attempt to take away my freedom to use DRM'ed software written using the latest version of all GPL'ed libraries?
The whole notion is anti-freedom, and it's probably going to create all kinds of forking of projects that could really use cohesion (or flat out behind-the-scenes GPL violation).
It's a bad idea. DRM is a good idea as long as we have a choice, which we do. If you don't want to use iTunes, don't use it. If I want to create an iTunes competitor using the best Open Source libraries, why should I be prevented from doing that by the FSF?
What difference does it make? Why can't the would-be users of the software decide whether or not the DRM is too intrusive? Why take away their freedom?
Amazing magic tricks
I'm not under the impression that the change will be forced, but it will force a lot of things:
Consider:
Projects that do fork will have to find two sets of maintainers instead of one, likely duplicating a ton of effort. Microsoft couldn't have engineered a better way to take the wind out of Open Source's sails and slow down the development of key libraries, etc.
This will force apps and distros to choose their various versions, and force tons of work upon developers and maintainers.
Meanwhile, the anti-DRM clause is a finger in the eye of businesses who want to embrace both Open Source and DRM. DRM quite simply is not evil. Users have a choice. By forbidding all DRM with GPL3'ed code, the FSF essentially screws over entrepreneurs who have been working on such code with the idea that the libraries they rely upon wouldn't likely change licenses. This won't be the case for every project, but it will surely kill some projects.
Most importantly, DRM is the future of content distribution and the move significantly marginalizes the GPL and everyone who has supported it over the years and makes us all look like anti-DRM jihadis.
Instead of this move, it would have made more sense to simply engineer a better, fairer, more technologically advanced form of DRM. Admittedly, many of the existing approaches have lacked flexibility and creativity and have been a pain to use... However I've still bought more music on iTunes in the past year than I ever bought via CD... I did so willingly because of the convenience and quality, with full awareness of the tradeoffs.
Amazing magic tricks
I want those projects to fork so I can immediately identify them and start ignoring them.
DRM is the ultimate police state. Every single computer will end up with a tiny little agent of the police watching everything you do.
Personally, I'm happy to let them decide whether or not they want to be free. If they don't want to be, they can choose proprietary software.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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
It seems there is a lot of confusion about the requirement for encryption keys and such.
I believe RMS and the FSF want to disallow the creation of environments where if you have e.g. a device (think XBox or wifi router here) based on GPL'd code, you should be able to change the code that is in the box. (I think RMS takes it a step further, as he states that he believes that any kind of device that *doesn't* let you do this uses proprietary software and is hence immoral.)
There are a lot of special devices out there, and sometimes you need encryption and signed code for things other than DRM.
Examples: embedded wifi firmware. Now it stands to reason that if I'm a vendor, I could gain a lot by using Linux or somesuch in this device. But FCC says I have to lock down the radio so end users cannot make it do things not intended by the mfg. Well, if it is a software programmable radio, the best (and maybe only) way to achieve that while allowing for firmware updates is to use signed firmware. Under GPLv3, I cannot make this device.
Security devices. I've worked on a FIPS-140-2 certified device that has a secure key store. It was based on VxWorks, but it could have easily have been done on Linux. But in order to guarantee the integrity of the key material on the device, you have to be certain that the end user CANNOT UPDATE THE CODE UNLESS IT IS SIGNED. These kinds of devices are incredibly useful, and frankly necessary to ensure security in certain eCommerce transactions, etc.
Again, these kinds of solutions have nothing to do with DRM, but are perfectly valid kinds of platforms. GPLv3 code cannot be used here. (And, GPLv2 code is subject to debate, depending, I think, on who is interpreting the boundaries. GPLv3 really clarifies, I think, the position of the FSF.)
RMS and co. want to prevent these kinds of things being developed with GPL code. Furthermore, I think the GPL and some supporting quotes from RMS and co. can be taken to mean that one of the GPL's goals is to actually prevent proprietary code from existing at all. The impact on DRM is just a side effect, but I think it is such a hot button that the community has latched on to it.
Linus seems a bit more reasonable and I think he actually wants companies to develop products on Linux, and devices like the ones I mentioned above might even seem reasonable devices to base on Linux. He just wants to make sure that he gets a copy of the source code changes so that the project can ultimately benefit. This is a totally different position than the "if I can't modify and redistribute the software then it is illegal" position of the FSF.
By the way, I've distributed code under GPL, LGPL, and BSD. Each has their own particular use -- no one license serves all needs. Adding GPLv3 to the mix doesn't change this, but it does add a new choice. (One I personally am not likely to use for any of the code I distribute, but then I like the idea of people being able to use my code in proprietary applications, as long as I get credit and a copy of any improvements.)
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
Ok, so you admit that you are happy to take away others' freedom.
DRM is absolutely not a police state. It is simply an enforcement mechanism for the license by which the content is made available to you.
In a free society, transactions should be mutually voluntary. Nobody should force you to buy anything and you shouldn't force anyone to sell you anything.
If a firm decides to sell content X only if certain rules are followed by the purchaser, then unless those rules are enforcable the firm won't sell the content.
Similarly, if the rules are not acceptable to the consumer, he should not make the purchase.
When a transaction does occur then, it's due to full mutual freedom of both parties, and the enforcement mechanism is a very inexpensive and efficient way for the firm to have confidence that the agreement isn't going to be broken by the purchaser.
Suppose you signed a contract with an employer to do a job for a salary and you got less pay or more work than you bargained for. That would be a breach of the contract, which is what you seem to think you ought to be able to do with content. It's wrong. Nobody OWES you any content. If you buy content you buy the TERMS that the SELLER WISHES to ALLOW, and no more or no less.
Just because something is music on a CD or download doesn't mean you get unlimited right to give a copy to everyone in the world. That argument is incredibly absurd. If a DRM system is too restrictive for your taste, buy the same content from a vendor with different DRM or else don't buy the content. It's your FREE CHOICE.
Amazing magic tricks
Good points.
I personally disagree with the FSF's stance on the issue, but you make a series of very good points.
Amazing magic tricks
If those rules involve significant restrictions on the person's behavior after the point of sale, then I do not think those rules should be binding unless a formal contract negotiation process occurs.
The transaction overhead of having to examine the contract terms of each and every single transaction you engage in is extremely onerous, and significantly to the advantage of the seller in most cases.
Additionally, having the enforcement of those rules be carried out by a small agent of the state attached to each and every single thing sold is an anathema to a free society. Enforcement must be purely on the basis of behavior that can be easily detected with a minimum of intrusion into people's lives.
The society you want is not a free one. It is one with a rigid set of rules that have an affect on the simplest, most innocuous actions. And you want to ubiquitous law enforcement to accomplish this goal.
Making this hard using licensing terms is about as much of a restriction of freedom as the the amendments of the constitution are a restriction of the freedom of the majority to impose their will on the minority.
It's about as absurd as stating that people should be allowed to speak to eachother in public without having to pay the inventor of the words they use. That business model is dead and buried. Making digital stuff not copyable is like making water not wet. All you will do in trying to change it will be to create the biggest engine of total state control the world has ever seen. All so some idiots with more money than sense who think the world should never change can feel comfortable.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
DRM is hardly an agent of the state.
I would have a problem if a government required DRM on all computers. I have a problem with CIA back doors into encryption schemes, monitoring international calls, etc.
But DRM is not about control it's about cooperation. The technology merely enforces the cooperative agreement in an extremely inexpensive, efficient way. When various hardware and software companies collaborate to create strong hardware-based DRM, it is due to cooperation toward a greater goal and has NOTHING to do with the state.
When you use iTunes, you read a simple agreement that contains too much legalese but is easy to understand the gist of. You get to burn up to 10 copies of a playlist to CD, and can copy your music to 5 computers. Songs cost $1 each, and sometimes there is a discount if you buy the whole album. Albums typically cost $5 less than they do at the local record store, so in addition to getting increased convenience in the form of an instant download you also get a price savings. You also get the DRM restrictions.
If the deal makes sense to you, you should buy songs from iTunes. If not, you should buy them from the record store. I prefer iTunes because I like the convenience and cost savings, and I rarely buy full albums. You may not. I very much enjoy the fact that I have the freedom to choose which method I want. I don't consider iTunes evil. On the contrary, it is a great gift to humanity that has improved my quality of life immensely.
If I know what I'm getting via iTunes usage agreement and I choose to use iTunes because I consider it a better value than the record store, how is that wrong?
If you're making the argument that just because you bought a copy of a CD you should be able to burn copies for the entire world then we have very little to discuss because you seem to think that record companies should be able to survive by selling a single copy of each album they produce.
Amazing magic tricks
I don't think record companies should survive in their current form. I won't use iTunes because it tries to take a broken business model and extend it past its useful life by having my own property act against me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I think you just proved my argument.
iTunes isn't perfect. I just lost $300 worth of music that was on my iPod when my machine crashed that I hadn't otherwise backed up. Very annoying.
Why should my iPod's 30GB hard drive not be a fine "back up" for my music? Apple says it isn't, and so I lost the music. Even if you reinstall iTunes with the same user account it tries to format the iPod when you plug it in. It actually went in and deleted the music off the iPod behind the scenes even though I said not to format.
But sooner or later Apple will offer Subscription DRM, which is better than what it has now.
Amazing magic tricks
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.