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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[Orion]

His concern appears to be with a clause that would require publically releasing the keys that were used to sign-off sections of the code.

I'd have to look into it in more detail to figure out what keys he is referring to. Does anybody know? I could see the logic of GPLv3 requiring this, and I can also see Linus' objection.

In other words, this isn't a knee-jerk reaction.... there is logic to it. Now maybe what Linus should be doing is commenting on GPLv3 so that it gets changed, and for all we know he has.

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?

[Matilda the Hun]

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.

I think that's what he's talking about, seeing as that's the only section I see having to do with encryption/private keys. I don't see how that requires developers to give out their private keys, but then again, I'm not privy to exactly how the Linux development process works.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[mrchaotica]

Nope! That's why copyright problems are so much more of a concern for the Linux kernel than they are for, say, HURD (because for HURD the copyright has to be assigned to the Free Software Foundation).

It's also why the Linux kernel is much more popular among developers than HURD (because people and companies can contribute to it and still keep their copyright).

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[Jon Pryor]

Don't contributors assign copyright to some type of Linux foundation?

No. Linux kernel contributors retain their own copyright. This is frequently considered to be a good thing, as it means that no single group has copyright over everything, which means that no single group can change the license to e.g. BSD and start selling a proprietary version of Linux.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[_xeno_]

He misinterpreted part of the GPLv3. The private key section says that if private keys are required for the code to function (in other words, your program will only load signed code) than you must make available a means to generate the signed code. The theory here is that certain hardware devices (*cough*TiVo*cough*) use GPLed software, but make it impossible to actually modify and run that software on their hardware device. In order to allow people to make changes and actually use those changes, you have to make available any private keys required to make the code actually run.

So if Mr. Torvalds has a private key that he uses to sign code, he is under no obligation to release that key to the public assuming that an end user can build and run the code without requiring the private key. You only have to release your private key if a third-party build of the software will not run without being signed by that key.

Now, another common misinterpretation that came up at the GPLv3 launch was that this meant that if you had set up your system to require signed code that you would have to make your private key available. This isn't the case. The only requirement is that a third party must be able to build and run the system without your private key. If this requires them to generate their own private key, that's perfectly acceptable.

If a GPLv3ed program cannot run without a specific private key, that private key must be made available. That's all the license says. Developers are not required to disclose private keys that they use to sign code.

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?

[pthisis]

The FSF does require that for its code, but Linux and a lot of other projects don't. It's not always bad, though. While it's harder to change the license, you don't have to trust whoever you're assigning the license to to not sell out.

At least with the FSF model, it's not 100% trust based; at least last time I checked they do sign a contract with the assigner saying that they'll distribute the code under a free license or the copyright reverts, or something along those lines. I can't remember the exact wording.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[gowen]

If you develop something under the GPLv3, be prepared to give up your private keys.

But only if they're required to "understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work". The FSF has been quite clear on that point. It does not require you to hand over anything that is not needed for normal running of the code.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[smittyoneeach]

If our task is to discredit the FSF and mis-characterize the GPLv3 effort, it is important to blow off the spirit of the license, which is to protect freedom, users, and developers.
One great means of achieving this mis-characterization is to apply the old formula: "a text without a context is a pretext".

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[Grab]

They'll need to get it working first. They've had 15 years so far, with nothing to show for it...

Grab.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[lewp]

The Hurd would have to work first.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[TTK Ciar]

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.

Hopefully Torvalds will clarify this soon enough, but I got the impression that he was referring to companies which use private keys to implement DRM as "developers" (which makes sense -- engineers at these companies develop Linux code, and if the company's suits couldn't deploy DRM with this code then the engineers might be told to stop developing Linux code and develop for some other platform (VxWorks, *BSD, OpenServer, WinCE, whatever)). I could be totally misreading him, but perhaps he thinks this source of development is good for Linux.

Or perhaps he's objecting on principle .. hopefully he will clarify soon.

-- TTK

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?

[Edam]

If that were the case, then wouldn't that mean that *every* contributor could change the licence for his/her bit of code to (say) BSD and screw everyone over?! As I understood it, if a particular version of the kernel is released with a license, then that's that! *Future* versions can be released under a different license, but that version is always available under the license it was released under. Thus, if a contributor decides he no longer wants to play fair, his code so far is already available under that license and can be forked (or just developed further) by someone else.

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?

[Arandir]

but this restriction is restricting your own use... arghhh... logical paradox loop... brain hurtz...

Welcome to the wonderful world of GNU!

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[sglane81]

I've held my tongue for quite a while on this hoping to see some discussion directly related to this. The GPLv2 has a MAJOR flaw in its original design. This could be intentional or unintentional, you decide. You state that "no single group can change the license" yet there remains the

"; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"

clause in the original version. One of two things _can_ happen:

1. The FSF _can_ change the license to a MIT/BSD style AT ANY TIME.
2. The GPL _should_only_ (theoretically) become more restrictive by design.

Sure, this may sound impossible, paranoid, and possibly stupid, but it is not out of the realm of legal possibilities. Since a lot of developers (myself included at one point) have not given our code and copyrights much thought, this gives the FSF a tremendous amount of power over a millions of lines of "GPLv2 and later" code. 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. If they did alter the license to reflect the spirit of the MIT license (20 years from now or next week), imagine the storm.

Lets not hold the FSF up to such a dim light; let's imagine a company bought them out. Don't say this is not possible as EVERYONE HAS A PRICE. So, this company altered the GPL to a MIT style. YOUR CODE IS NOW IN THE Public Domain. This company and anyone else could use our "GPLv2 (or any later version)" code to do whatever they want, completely against our initial wishes. We allowed this by leaving that clause intact. You might change your license to use ONLY the GPLv2 at this point, but your "GPLv2 and later" code may still exist in some repository somewhere and you've lost the game.

As for #2, well, the FSF doesn't plan to do #1 intentionally (hopefully) so they will make it more restrictive. If I were to take a piece of GPL code, and GPLv2 says I can't rebrand and sell it without the author's permission, but GPLv15 says I can, I think I'll go with GPLv15. The FSF doesn't want this, so the GPL will only become more restrictive. You don't change the rules of a game unless you do it to your favor.

The only reason to put the "or later" clause in the GPL is to maintain as much control over as much stuff as possible.

Fortunately, we have a crazy hippie captain at the helm, RMS. If the FSF were run like any other company (for profit or not), we would not be where we are today. Hostile takeovers on the board might be possible at the FSF.

* I know Linus removed this from the kernel, but many other developers don't care / don't know.
** This post isn't directed at the parent since the parent specified Linux.

If I were a major software company with money to burn, I would do this.

1. Grab as much "GPL and later" code as possible.
2. Build and brand this code. Prepare to market and copyright it.
3. Buy out the FSF guys and redo the GPL to MIT.
4. Profit.

Yeah, this may be inane paranoid rambling, but hackers have the same thought patterns as slick lawyers. We both look for holes in the system to deliver our payload.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[IpalindromeI]

Yes, very compelling argument. Let's break it down.

Of course it is!

Can't refute an exclamation point.

For one FLOSS developers often happen to be users as well

Yes, but it only protects their freedoms as users, not developers. It is possible for one person to be affected in both positive and negative respects from a given situation.

also developers tend to be more interested in source code then users...

That's true, but what does it have to do with your point? Substituting an ellipse for reasoning isn't the best way to convince.

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.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[Cyclops]

You confuse the purpose of Free Software with being Free just for being Free.

The purpose of Free Software is to provide _ALL_USERS_ 4 basic freedoms. Not just some... as such certain restrictions would have to apply.

Enter the GNU GPL

The GNU GPL is a Free Software license that fills the ring making it an unbreakable circuit of Freedom by stopping people from removing Freedom to anyone. This is a basic point of the GPL: Freedom for all, and that means that uses that mean removing Freedom are against the spirit of the GPL even if they are legally valid under GPLv2.

Enter the GNU GPL version 3

The new installment of the GNU GPL aims to close some loopholes against user Freedom, like better anti-patent and anti-DRM oppression regimes. The purpose is not about source code and it's uses but about user's Freedoms.

Finally

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

Your assessment that this breaks Freedom 0 is false on all accounts.
Freedom 0 is about running for any purpose. The abstract term use that you used is not about running the program but about publication of modified versions (Freedom 3).

Although at first sight V3 _seems_ to break Freedom 3, it breaks it in the very same way V2 already _seems_ to break. It imposes restrictions on the act of redistribution that forbid removing Freedoms to others.

Re:What v3 does he mean?

[LWATCDR]

"That's also why the Linux kernel is much more popular among developers than HURD (because people and companies can contribute to it and still keep their copyright)."
No.
Linux is more popular than HURD because it has been around longer and is is more useful. Hurd came late. A developer can go one of two ways. Work on Linux and expand a working system that is used by millions or work on a system that few have ever heard about.
Frankly I don't like what I have read of GPL v3 and I feel that it will not be as popular as GPL v2. I would also have to say that the importance of RMS and the EFF will decrease if this is adopted. I will say that it will have no impact on HURD one way or the other.
I will also say I would love to see HURD used in more academic settings. It is an interesting project.

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.

Re:Don't see how this is a story.

[SquadBoy]

Clearly I can't speak for Linus. But I can float a couple of theories based on my own thoughts and the bits of the history that I know. Adn what is /. for if not wild and semi-random speculation on subjects about which we have no first hand knowledge!

IIRC Linus has said that back when he started coding Linux that he was not aware of the *BSD project (Free only at that point I think but am not sure) and that if he had known of it he would have simply used that. Also, and I'm going to just disclaim the rest of this post here and drop it as it is getting old, pretty much the only reason he GPLed it was because that was the only free license he knew of and to thank RMS for GCC. He has also *never* really been political, either way. And has always seemed to make choices based on the quality of code as he sees it (Bitkeeper, as an example but I am *not* making any statements about the quality of said code either way simply that he *thought* it as better and used it in spite of the license).

So having established that Linus seems to be pretty much a political agnostic (As a *BSD guy this is one of the many things I respect about the guy).

The new version of the GPL seems to me to be *very* political. In fact political almost to the point where I'm not sure it can really be called a free software license anymore. I mean *YES* the things it is against are evil evil evil and should be wiped from the face of the Earth. But a "free software" license is IMO, and given the history and what we are seeing now I think one could guess that Linus would agree, NOT the place to fight that battle. Use restrictions are *very* much against what many of us see as the whole point of free software. I think this starts us down a very bad slippery slope and one that the FSF is insane to step onto. I, for one, am glad to see Linus avoiding it.

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?

Re:Huh

[k98sven]

How can code released under the GPL be relicensed at all, even GPLv3?

1) Because the GPL license can optionally include the statement that it's covered by the GPL and/or any later version.

2) Because a copyright holder can relicense, dual-license and in general put any conditions he or she wants on their copyrighted work, including multiple different sets of conditions (licenses).

What you are asking is akin to saying "If someone lends a book to me on a set of conditions, how can they be allowed to lend it to someone else on different ones?".

If it can be, why can't I take it and license it with a BSD-style or completely closed source license?

Because you don't own the copyright.

Well, this is how it goes:

[Nichotin]

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".

Re:Well, this is how it goes:

[Nichotin]

No, the copyright holders can give permission to re-release it as GPLv3 or Carl and Jabbas Artistic Hut Licence. The 'problem' with the Linux kernel, is that there are an extreme amount of copyright holders, so even if RedHat gave permission to re-release their code as GPLv3, that would not be anywhere near the complete kernel source code.

Re:Well, this is how it goes:

[stinerman]

As the grandparent tried to put it, only the copyright holder can change the license on a piece of software.

If I create a program that counts to 100 and then exits, I can release it under any license(s) I want. If I release it GPL v2 and someone says, "Hey, Stine, management wants us to avoid GPL. Can we get it under BSD?", I can decide to release it under BSD if I so choose. You cannot decide to release my code under any other license than I have explicitly said that you can. If you want it under a different license, you have to ask my permission.

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.

Re:Well, this is how it goes:

[maxwell demon]

If you are the copyright holder, you can re-release your code any time under any license you want. Now if every kernel contributor re-releases his code under GPLv3, then the whole kernel is re-released under GPLv3. Of course, the code you received under v2 would remain under v2; and if you have an old kernel containing code which isn't in the current one, and isn't relicensed, then you couldn't redistribute it under v3 either. Also I think GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible, because e.g. the GPLv3 DRM stuff is an extra restriction, and GPLv2 explicitly disallows any additional restrictions, therefore you couldn't add that v2 code to the hypothetical v3-licensed kernel and distribute it.

IANAL however, and the above is just my understanding.

Full Text; Lots of MySQL Errors

[WebHostingGuy]

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

Re:Full Text; Lots of MySQL Errors

[stinerman]

I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.

I think Linus is mistaken on this point. Nowhere does the GPL v3 say anything about making private keys available. This was hashed over in the previous discussion. Now if he still doesn't like some of the terms of the GPL v3, then more power to him. Even then, as other posters have commented, it'd take a small miracle to find every last copyright holder and have them agree to the change in 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.

Re:DRM, private keys

[mrchaotica]

The freedom of choice should be for the device manufacturer to specify what may or may not be run on the platform that they create, as I think it should be their right to determine this.

If the manufacturer wants to do this, then it should not use the GPL, beacuse the explicitly stated, driving philosophical goal of the GPL is to ensure the freedom of the user. Ensuring the freedom of the developer is the job of the BSD license.

DRM is incompatible with the GPL because it violates the principle that the user should have total and complete control over the tools he uses. That's exactly the goal that RMS wants to achieve with the GPL in the first place!

Re:I don't get it...

[everphilski]

http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/01 /17/1454213&from=rss

DRM clause I guess?

"Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output."

http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft

Re:slashy mc dotted

[Fishstick]

hmm, I guess I was lucky and got in before the ./-ing

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

I GNU it!

[digitaldc]

The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid.

Nothing to see here, please move along.

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

[TubeSteak]

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

Could it have anything to do with the hard-on Stallman has for GNU/Linux?

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?

Refusing contributions?

[velco]

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

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.

Why trust anyone?

[vondo]

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.

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!

Maybe Linus doesn't LIKE what GPL3 requires?

[stevew]

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.

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?

Linus is wrong

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Older versions of Linux can be distributed under any version of the GPL ever published by the FSF, as per GPLv2 section 9, since they did not specify a version of the GPL.

Of course, it's actually GPLv2 or later, because several source files have the "v2 or later" clause.

Re:Linus is wrong

[DaHat]

Jesus Christ you are right!

To quote the key section:

If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

That just gave me an idea on how Microsoft and others could destroy Linux and other OSS...

Step 1: Take over FSF
Step 2: Turn GPL into a more BSD like license
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!

And I think we all know what could and would happen for Step 3.

Which is why HURD will never see the light of day

[Megaweapon]

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

Anyone else notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Just the kernel?

[mnmn]

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.

Re:Just the kernel?

[atomm1024]

Any GPLed software by FSF will become GPLv3, presumably. So yes, gcc will become GPLv3. However, glibc is LGPL, so that will not be changing.

Re:Just the kernel?

[MarkJenkins]

There's Debian Linux

Actually, the project and distribution you're referring to calls itself Debian GNU/Linux.

but strictly speaking, because there's no complete operating system that uses only GNU utils and the Linux kernel, there's no such thing as GNU/Linux.

You misunderstand the argument for calling the system GNU/Linux. Allow me to summarize it.

Premises

• The operating system in question consists of a many components from many projects.
• It would be unreasonable to name the system after all these components.
• A compromise must be made where the system is named after the most important components.
• The most significant contribution to this operating system is GNU.
• The second most significant contribution is a kernel named Linux.
• Failing to include GNU in the name of the system leaves most users unaware that GNU is the most significant component.
• The GNU project's idealism resulted in a significant practical outcome.
• Unawareness of the significance of GNU's contribution can lead to two problems, a person thinking their philosophy is impractical, or not knowing about it at all.
• The philosophy of the GNU project and the free software movement is a philosophy worth spreading.
• Including GNU in the name of the system does not spread the philosophy, but it does highlight the contribution's significance, increasing the chance that a user will learn about and agree with the philosophy.

Conclusion: The best name for the operating system in question is GNU/Linux.

I understand why someone who rejects any of these premises would disagree with the conclusion. If GNU were not the most significant component, it would be unfair to insist on including it in the system's name, even if one wanted to promote the philosphy. (We don't call Solaris or FreeBSD, GNU systems) If one does not feel it is important to spread the project's philosophy, there is little gained by including it in the name, even when one recognizes that GNU is the most significant component. Thus, it must be understood that the combination of these reasons and circumstances leads to the conclusion.

There's Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, SuSE Linux, Gentoo Linux, and dozens of others.... Debian is probably closest to GNU/Linux

These are all GNU/Linux systems, Debian doesn't have more GNU software than the others. All of them use Linux as a kernel and the following vital GNU components:

• The GNU C Library (glibc)
• BASH, the GNU shell
• GNU Coreutils
• GNU Findutils
• GNU grep
• GNU sed
• GNU Tar
• GNU zip, gzip
• GNU Diffutils
• Ncurses, the GNU curses library.

In the case of Gentoo, GNU make, gcc, GNU binutils. and GNU patch should be viewed as vital too. :)

If you think carefully about what makes a system 'Unix like', you will appreciate why GNU is the most significant contribution. Another pos

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

[Cal Paterson]

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.

Are GPL2 and GPL3 compatible?

[johnmrowe]

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

Re:GPL weakness: "at your option any other version

[m50d]

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.

There's no grey area. It's recommended but optional, and linux doesn't use it.

Read the LKML Archive. this has been discussed

[dmh20002]

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

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

[Megaweapon]

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.

Interesting advertorial on the page

[jchennav]

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.

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.

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:Same old

[ClamIAm]

Considering Linus's views on some things now, I probably need to start storing marshmallows this week to enjoy the flamefests 20 years from now, when he's a cranky old bastard.

JLH???

[biendamon]

Jennifer Love Hewitt?
Juicy Lumpy Hamburgers?
Just Limp Humphrey?

MOD UP!

[MarkusQ]

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

Re:Not sure I understand

[Grab]

As a user, you won't care. It *only* relates to software authors. A quick and dirty summary:-

- Public domain allows people to do anything they like with your code, including making minor mods and claiming it as all their own work, or making minor mods and selling the result as closed-source code.

- BSD allows reuse of your code or a modified version of your code, in anything (including commercial software), without releasing source, so long as they credit you. In other words you can't claim it as your own work.

- LGPL allows reuse of your code as a component part of a commercial software system - hence its alternative name of "library GPL". You don't need to release the code for anything that uses this code/library. However if you make changes to the LGPL code/library then you must release the changes. Again, credits are required.

- GPL goes a step further. If you use a GPL code/library component as part of your software, then you must also release *all* your software as GPL as well, otherwise you may not use that code/library component. Again, there's the requirement for releasing code and credits.

There's many other licenses, but you get the idea.

There's two different philosophies here that drive this.

The first is the Open Source philosophy (Linus and ESR are the drivers here). This says that if everyone works together, we can build something better than closed source software. But it doesn't invalidate the existence of closed source software - it acknowledges that this only works for mass-market software, so there will always be niches where closed-source is a better choice. Basically their drive is to help people do their jobs more efficiently.

The second is the Free Software philosophy (driven by RMS and the FSF group). This says that the very *existence* of closed-source software is immoral, and anyone using closed-source software (even in niches where no free equivalent exists) is guilty of immorality (RMS says that if no free software exists to do a job, then you should refuse to do that job). Software is therefore created as a moral imperative, rather than as a means to an end of carrying out some task (such as web browsing or word processing).

Grab.

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.

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

[rpdillon]

No, your statement is not true. Your statement said:

"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?

Re:Wasn't this already covered?

[ray-auch]

The GPLv3 will be fundamentally incompatible with any program using the Trusted Computing, because all the necessary keys can never be revealed. I assume that is the point

Exactly.

And Linus's point is that that makes it fundamentally incompatible with other forms of code signing too. The whole "Trusted Computing" thing is just a logical extension of current code-signing practice, you can't ban one without affecting the other.

Example: You want your OS's auto-update mechanism to validate updates against your vendors' private key ? I do. That's how I trust it. Your OS is GPL v3 ? - then your vendor has to publish the keys. Bye bye trust.

GPLv3 is still in development

[ajayrockrock]

Everyone knows that the odd numbers are under active development. Linus is just waiting until the next stable release, GPLv4.

--Ajay

Re:Not sure I understand

[replicant108]

[RMS says] anyone using closed-source software (even in niches where no free equivalent exists) is guilty of immorality

That's simply not true, and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of RMS' position.

What he says is: "If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have."

Which is a different thing altogether.

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:cost vs. benefits

[argent]

Good to see I wasn't hallusinating about the "definition of a user" bit not being in there.

What most people *are* listing under the disadvantages is the DRM stuff. It is believed by many that it would be impossible to make a DRM decoding device using Linux without giving out enough information to break the DRM, thus preventing a huge potential market for Linux.

There's basically thre parts to the DRM section.

The first part says you can't use the GPLed code for illegal purposes. The GPL already sais that it's void if you'd be breaking the law by using it, so that bit's redundant,

The third bit says that you have to provide any necessary keys to the user if the user isn't already getting those keys some other way. But in a DRM application, you have to provide the keys to the user for them to decrypt the DRM: that's how DRM works, so that bit is actually irrelevant. Plus, it's covered in the definition of the source code, so it's redundant.

That leaves the bit in the middle. Which is interesting. What it mostly seems to be for is to ensure that if someone uses their access to the GPLed code to learn how to bypass the DRM, or to actually bypass the DRM, you can't sue them under the DMCA or similar laws for breaking or bypassing a security device.

also the method of reinstalling the software could change the keys so that the machine will no longer decode the "real" data but instead now be able to decode some other data that does not have any entertainment encoded in it

I believe that would violate the earlier section where it defines what it means by source code.

Up to the contributor, mostly

[ishmalius]

If the code has already been released as GPL v.2 and it has already been dispersed into the Internet wilderness, then what is done, is done. However, new code and/or new versions of existing code can be licensed however the author of it wants. It is merely up to the kernel integrators to decide if they want to use it or not.

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.

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.

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

[Megaweapon]

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.

Re:I don't get it...

[ray-auch]

[...] TIVO [...]

Nor does it matter if we create a large infrastructure where Linus signs his releases and we write software that rejects unsigned releases

The fact that you _could_ use the unsigned releases elsewhere is irrelevant [or else TIVO could say that you _could_ run their source unsigned elsewhere].

The "recommended or principal context of use" would be an environment that checks for the signature (which is the whole damn point), therefore the keys would have to be disclosed.

GPLv3 attempts to prohibit its use with any sort of trusted distribution architecture. It doesn't (and probably isn't able to) make distinction between "good" or "bad" trusted distribution.

- or at least that is the way Linus seems to read it and is one reason why he says he rejects it. I have to say I agree with his reading of it.

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

[mrchaotica]

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.

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.

Re:TiVo Series II uses this trick to prevent hacki

[mrchaotica]

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.

It doesn't matter -- it's still violating the spirit and intent of the GPL, and with these changes it'll finally be violating the letter of it too!