Slashdot Mirror
Could Linux Still Go GPL3?
turnitover writes "Even though Linus has said 'The Linux kernel has always been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid,' LinuxWatch is reporting that Richard Stallman has said it's ultimately up to the developers. And those on the LKML (Linux Kernel Mailing List) are going back and forth about whether to move to GPL3. The sticking point, not surprisingly, is the issue of DRM." In response to the DRM issue Linus wrote: "I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than in software licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes."
"I would suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes."
Wait... is this a typo or is Linus saying content-protection schemes are a sure way to lose protection?
I don't know what the f*** Stallman is talking about. As Linus pretty much still rules the roost as to what officially goes into the kernel, how is it precisely, if he's so against GPL3, that GPL3 could make it into the kernel?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Sure, I suppose Linux could move to the GPL3. I'm not really sure of the consequences, though. I'm sure it wouldn't be a big deal, but I may be wrong. I don't really care either way.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Ping Wales is carrying Alan Cox's views on GPLv3 and DRM.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's what every software project does when there's fundamental differences of opinion on which direction to go. If Linus and the other Linux software devs don't like GPL3, just fork the thing and take out the parts you don't like and use that license. After all, the text of the GPL 3 license should be able to be modified just like source code, right? You wouldn't be able to call it GPL 3, as it's just confusing. But GPL 2.99 might work nicely as a name.
AccountKiller
You only have to give out your private keys
if not possessing them is an obstacle to using
the software as intended.
You are free to sign code all you like if all
you depend on is your reputation. It's when
you try to restrict peoples use of the code
that you run into problems.
Linus earlier cited Red Hat as a case of a company
that will have to adjust to GPLv3. IANAL but
I suspect and hope he's right -- they've been
cheating for years.
-t
All of the controversy over the GPL3 isnt so much caused by the details, but by the underlying mentalities. RMS is more of the belief that freedom is a necessity and everyone should do everything in an open, free manner, and that people can't be trusted. Torvalds sees freedom as more of a tool, a bonus, and people/businesses are generally trustworthy. I like to think of it that way, and that is why I prefer BSD/MIT style over other licences. Businesses will always make proprietary software, that won't change. Proprietary isn't bad, and prohibiting it only restricts what the user/developer can do.
I am Spartacus
Honestly, I'm trying to follow this. What is Linus' beef with GPLv3? Does it matter if there are some anti-drm provisions in the Linux kernel license?
ConsultingFair.com
Well, I guess they could GPL3 all the portions of the kernel that aren't derivative works of Linus' parts. Which would be what, exactly? The build scripts?
The way I look at it, it is a matter of Apples and Oranges. Both men are correct in the spirit of the argument. I would just like to see a bit more cohesion regarding the Free/Oss community because I know this will get picked up and spun as "there Go Those In-Fighting Zealots". A case for each is made by Rick and Linus, with relevent information below.
From Linux Devices: Stallman notes that the discussion draft of GPLv3 includes language aimed at preventing free software from being "twisted" into service by companies attempting to deprive people of freedoms provided by the copyright system. Those using free software to build DRM-encumbered systems would be obliged, under the proposed license, to share enough "signatures," or keys, so that users of the software retain "full control," he says.
Another primary aim of the discussion draft of GPLv3 is to increase compatibility with other free software licenses that have appeared since the license was last revised 15 years ago, the interview suggests. This was done by making the license more tolerant of trademark clauses and patent retaliation clauses, such as those found in the Apache license. However, Stallman states that permissible retaliation clauses are limited to those addressing clear wrongdoing, adding that he hopes other license drafters will "decide to make their patent retaliations compatible." Empahsis mine
Linus stated in his mail that "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." Again, emphasis mine.
In the end, the contributing developers AND the rights holders will determine what the outcome is.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Of course it's up to the developers what license they will
release their code under.
It's still up to Linus what gets into the kernel.
Since each contributor to the kernel doesn't sign away the copyright to a central holding entity, keeping track of who has a copyright interest in the kernel to license is tough enough... now RMS is demanding the contributors opt between v2 and v3? Nuts.
Since when the fuck does RMS get a say in Linus' kernel? So he says it's up to the developers. That doesn't mean that it is. It's up to the Linus, not the developers, no matter what RMS says. It's not his kernel to license.
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
Nothing else has ever been valid,' LinuxWatch is reporting that Richard Stallman has said it's ultimately up to the developers.
Stallman couldn't be more wrong if he said whether Linux goes to GPLv3 is ultimately up to him (which might be his next press release, I don't know). Linus Torvalds holds the trademark for Linux, he's the one in charge of the project, in what way, shape, or form could anyone else force the project to go to a new license? Maybe his corporate masters could, but last I checked OSDL doesn't seem to much care about exercising that kind of control (and if they did, it's not like he couldn't get a new job in seconds).
Maybe someone can explain Stallman's "reasoning", but really, this just seems like more evidence that the man has completely lost touch with reality.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
What part of Linux is not the kernel?
It highlights the empty idiocy of some comments. Maybe people will take notice and try for some more enriching discussion
Really?
I think actually the only thing that is Linux is the Linux kernel.
A Linux distribution is more properly referred to as GNU/Linux and features GNU software and utilities running on a Linux kernerl. Referring to the entire system as Linux is incorrect. It really is just the kernel.
I don't know about you, but I would resent DRM being ported to linux. I switched operating systems to escape the restriction-ridden operating systems that are macintosh and windows.
(Commence the modding down by mac fanboys who think their favorite operating system has no restrictions whatsoever on what it can do).
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
About 99% IMHO. I don't consider the kernel to be Linux, but instead the vast amount of community projects. I know that some people consider the kernel to be Linux, but unlike Windows I see Linux as the community rather than the core OS.
Isn't the more important question: What does the Koran say about the GPLv3?
Ever.*
The kernel is GPL2 without the "or a later version" wording. All the contributions are GPL2. In order to convert the kernel to GPL(!2), you need to get approval from every single contributor to the kernel whose code is in any way in the kernel. Now, let's say you manage to do this, including approval from the executors of the estates of contributors who have passed on, you still need approval from Linus himself. Linus has already stated that he has no intentions of converting to GPL(!2).
Now, you could of course pseudo-fork the kernel by managing to get approval for all contributors, living and dead, aside from Linus. You could then re-write any code worked on by Linus (which, still, is a very substantial amount) and have a Linux-like system under the GPL(!2). Now, you just have to get approval to use the Linux trademark. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.
*For finite values of 'ever.' Restricted to this universe.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Why resent DRM being put into Linux? If you don't like it, I'm sure there will be DRM-less distributions that you'll be able to use. For those who want the DRM in Linux, why do you want to force your opinion on them? If F/OSS is about choice, why are you wanting to limit the choices available?
It might be "up to the developers" to make a GPL3 operating system that is forked from the current Linux kernel, but it won't be called Linux as Linus owns that trademark and Linus says no to GPL3. Perhaps this is what Stallman is ultimately after. He can finally have a GNU operating system without hyphens or slashes.
Stallman: a shrill voice in the wilderness.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Stallman is repeating his behaviour with Ulrich Drepper and Glibc, here. Ergo, if the leader of a project refuses to go the way he wants them to, he will attempt to turn other people associated with the project against said project leader.
I have found myself wondering what it is going to take before people will acknowledge the type of man that Richard Stallman truly is. He is seeking division here, and he is doing so purely for the sake of his own ego; because he cannot stand to be in any position other than one of complete control. I keep reading of example after example of this...it's his way or no way. Is that honestly what freedom means?
People try and claim that the real threat to the future of F/OSS is on the other side of the ideological/economic divide...that Stallman is a hero. To people who would continue to maintain such a view of the man, I ask you to look at what he is doing here.
Take a long, hard look.
What you see isn't really relevant.
The fact is that the rest GNU is certainly not Linux (or UNIX), but a separate project that has its own albeit still beta kernel.
Other open source projects aren't Linux either. Many of them can be run on other operating systems including windows. Basically there's an open source community and referring to it as Linux is ridiculous.
There is a good article on LWN.net, but it's subscriber-only until Feb 9th: http://lwn.net/Articles/169797/
Here's an excerpt:
==BEGIN EXCERPT===
Another thing to keep in mind is that Linus can change his mind, even after seemingly painting himself into a corner with an absolute statement. One of your editor's favorite Linus pronouncements was issued almost exactly seven years ago. In response to a query on how to set up an i386 box with 4GB of memory, Linus stated:
Oh, the answer is very simple: it's not going to happen.
EVER.
You need more that 32 bits of address space to handle that kind of memory. This is not something I'm going to discuss further... This is not negotiable.
Less than one year later, Ingo Molnar's high memory patch was merged for 2.3.23.
===END EXCERPT---
There are a few things to keep in mind about DRM that have not been explained in a lot of the articles.
This was debated on ILUG yesterday. Here's the mail that started it: http://www.linux.ie/lists/pipermail/ilug/2006-Febr uary/086087.html
So it's worth keeping in mind that what Linus calls the GPLv3 is actually only the first discussion draft - but also, due to point #2 above, while changes may be made, I'd be pretty sure there will be DRM-combatting provisions in GPLv3.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I am sure that Linux will be switched over to GPLv3 less then 6 months after GPLv3 is actually released in its final form. The issues that Linux and some others are bringing up are mostly their misunderstanding of what is acually said in GPLv3 and how it corelates with the DMCA and case law of USA and with laws in other countries.
NOTHING in GPLv3 disallows implementing DRM with GPLv3 code. However there are some extra provisions that insure that if such implementations are made, the right to change that code (which is one of the most protected rights in the context of the GPL) can not be taken away from the users by a means of a DMCA-based lawsuits.
Oh, and if you make hardware and sell it to the users, please do not restrict what code users can use on that hardware, or if you do, please do it without using our (GPLv3'd) code. That is the TiVo scenario - the TiVo has sold a person a computer, but it uses a technical provision to deny thoses people an ability to execude their programms on the hardware. They might not be able to give us some services if our software does not work like theirs does or they would surely not support software problems in our software, but it is not right to use our code and then lock it from us in a box that we paid for.
I think that once the GPLv3 is polished a bit more and once someone explains all the provision of the GPLv3 and corresponding laws to the LKML people in ways that they will understand, the move to GPLv3 will be unobstructed (maybe except for by a few people who wish they would be writing code for BSD anyway).
At that point opening a Linux 3.0 branch with GPLv3 clean code only would be most reasonable thing to do.
Has DRM ever helped anyone, even including the RIAA?
Linus is an engineer. RMS is an idealogue. Linus wants to make a kernel that the maximum number of people can use for whatever they want. He doesn't care what you use it for. RMS wants to restrict you to only using it for things that are "free".
Linus has openly stated that DRM is OK with linux. There's your (potential) beef.
Linus is down with open source. RMS is down with free software. There is a difference, and they don't always get along.
Or you'll end up with RMS standing behind you trying to shout 'GNU' before every other word you say....
Linux is a trademark owned by Linus Torvalds. The trademark is used to describe the kernel whose development is lead by Linus Torvalds. Nothing else can accurately (or legally) be described as Linux.. See this article for more information.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You're referring to an operating system distribution based on the linux kernel. The term "Linux" has come to have several meanings, including your less formal one. But the original, specific meaning of the term was just the kernel, and that usage will always be correct.
Linus said
"Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile,"
when the (draft of the) GPLv3 says
"3. Digital Restrictions Management. [...] no permission is given [...] for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
As far as I understand, what the GPLv3 says is that as long as RedHat gives you a way to recompile the OS with your own signing keys (or without authentication at all) then they are allowed to distribute GPL software with whatever signature they want.
Where did I miss something ?
--Go Debian!
Fork the kernel. Like everything else Linux :)
(for the record I agree with Linus... on the kernel level keep things as open as possible. Possibilities are endless.)
I agree with you, but you have to love the paradox:
:)
DRM: the freedom of being controlled.
I am pretty sure that what you actually want is to get access to DRM-protected content, preferably without any of those strange restrictions that DRM treis to enforce on it. It is not the DRM that people want, it is the content!
RMS said this is up to Linux kernel developers. Where did he say this is up to him?
Can you explain your reasoning. How did you reach this understanding?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
It isn't going to be possible to move the kernel from v2 to v3 without the following happening:
1) Find the contributor of every piece of code in the kernel and pursade them to change to v3
2) Get all the code where either the contributor won't accept that, or you can't find them, and re-write it.
Seeing as a large proportion of the kernel has been written by Linus, by the time all code he wrote, and all the code derived from code he wrote was re-written by someone else, there wouldn't be much of the original kernel left.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
What if this happened?
A major network equipment manufacturer takes linux, adds some functionality and starts using it as their primary/only operating system for all of the equipment. They sell it as Linux-based to the masses. Because of the vendor's market position and the new "Linux Based" advertising campaign, most customers readily buy ths stuff up.
We soon find that the hardware will only work with firmware which has been digitally signed by the vendor. Also, although the source code is available (as required by GPL2) it is useless when run on hardware that doesn't have the right keys embeded in it.
The result is hardware that can't be updated except by the vendor and modifications to the software that are not usable by the very developers responsible for Linux in the first place.
So, is this a reason to be concerned about GPL2 vs GPL3? Is the vendor's actions compatible with the spirit/intent of GPL2? Perhaps more importantly, would the fact that something like this *could* happen cause developers who would have improved Linux to stay away?
Isn't Linux wrong about this? It doesn't require you to make your private keys available unless the preferred execution environment requires binaries to be signed only by a certain person. This seems aimed at TiVO. If you have to have TiVO's keys to make a modified version run, then TiVO has to provide their signing keys. But if you can make your modified copy run just as well with by signing it with your own primary keys, the author doesn't have to provide their keys.
This just seems consistent with Stallman -- you can't use cryptography to subvert the freedom of the end user.
-jagWhen all you have is a hammer, everybody looks like a Messiah.
I don't care about being able to copy DVD's on my computer. I want to retain the ability to create my own flat files on my system and do what I want with them.
DRM, taken to the extremes which it demands, removes my ability to do that.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Err, that's an odd logic - we'll put DRM in to the kernel, then opt out when we create content?! I don't get it - Linux as attracted the following of (firstly) people attracted to "free" (as in "freedom") so why should Linux have tools to restrict this freedom? Makes no sense.
Am I missing the point?
So all of a sudden Linux wants to stop me playing that tune/movie/application/whatever on my laptop unless I buy two copies. Is Linux going to go the way of Unix & Minix for similar reasons? Am I missing something?
As I have said in other forums, dealing with DRM is beyond the scope of a software license such as the GPL. To my mind, it would be the same as saying "No program may be written under the GPL that operates a nuclear power plant". Whether you are for or against nuclear power is irrelevant. The point is: what is the purpose of the GPL? The GPL is intended to guarantee the four freedoms, as those freedoms apply to the specific software being licensed.
DRM is a hotbutton issue, and it does relate to freedom, but the freedom of a particular piece of content, not the freedom of a particular piece of software capable of displaying that content.
I believe the anti-DRM battle should be fought in the correct arena. That arena is not GPL software.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
No, it's up to Linus. Developers can submit code under GPL3, or any other license. But it's up to Linus whether to include that code in his kernel source - if he accepts that incoming license, and abides by it, including the requirement that he release his new code with the inclusions under the new license. If Linus doesn't want to release a new kernel under GPL3, he can't include GPL3 code, and doesn't have to.
However, if the contributors insist on submitting code with GPL3, and Linus declines to accept it, there's some legal arguments to be resolved before deciding whether they can fork the kernel and release it under GPL3, with his code. It depends on whether GPL2 code can be released under GPL3. I wonder what Eben Moglen has to say about that. But even if it's OK, that's still not "Linux". Linus owns the trademark, and cannot allow a fork which dilutes his trademark with a different product - he'd lose the trademark.
--
make install -not war
We need a third word. There's GNU, there's the Linux kernel, and there's the wad that they make when you push them together, which I propose we call "Smapdi". But someone better at naming things should come up with a better word, but can we please accept that "GNU/Linux" is a stupid name and not use it anymore? If you really like it, please consider dropping the unnecessary filler-"G", leaving the infinitely more pronounceable "NU/Linux". You might want to consider smooshing it a little more and going with "NuLinux," which is a very pretty word.
Although, now that I look at it, the "Nu" is a bit redundant. To address that, I suggest either moving the "nu"s together to get "Linunux", or just dropping a set and going with "Linux." Which is also a very pretty word. So, yeah, let's just go with "Linux."
1. Make a public announcement that the kernel is moving to GPL3. This announcement would undoubtedly be picked up by all the relevant news organizations, and be common knowledge among developers (heh - there's no way it could possibly be kept quiet).
2. Schedule a transition period for the conversion. Say, 1 year.
3. During the transition period. all files start off being GPL2. And the end, all files still included in the kernel are marked as GPL3 clean.
4. Make all reasonable attempts to contact the copyright holders.
5. Cut over those files where the copyright holder has agreed to the license change. Those files which still aren't "GPL 3 clean" can still be included in the kernel.
6. For any files which aren't GPL 3 clean, either toss them, or rewrite them. Odds are, if the owner still wants his or her work kept in the kernel, they will go along with the conversion. But there is no downside to including a GPL 2 file in with the GPL 3 code, as long as it is marked as such.
The legal risk here to a lawsuit is minimal. Any contested file could be reverted back to GPL 2, if someone objected. Damages are unlikely, because of the widespread publicity (where the copyright holder should have known about the change, and failed to act). Also, the damages would be restricted to the impact of going from GPL 2 to GPL 3. THAT would be very hard to establish, at best.
However, the legal risk of the kernel right now due to submarine patents is significant. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft were planning to fund a company to do this right now. It would be far cheaper than their current SCO-funded lawsuit, and a lot more effective. This risk, and potential downside, far outweighs that of going to GPL 3.
Stallman and his various comments have long been a subject of very akward feeling and conversation.
Virtually everyone here has a massive respect for the man's technical genius, but at the same time virtually everyone realizes he's a bit of a lunatic.
I think it would be alot easier on all of us if we just killed him.
We're meeting at the flagpole in an hour. Bring your knives, bats, and decompilers.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Perhaps now at last RMS will stop insisting on the "GNU/Linux" crap.
Linux vs FreeBSD? Yet another nail in the coffin for Linux for me on this one :)
smash(have run Linux for 10 years and FreeBSD for 6).
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Scenario A:
Alan signs a Linux binary with his private key "A". He makes available public key "a". Many Linux installations are set to refuse to run binarys which are not signed to match one of the public keys they have in their "trusted keys" file, which typically include Alan's key "a". I can run a modified binary as follows: Create my own key pair "C" and "c". Add public key "c" to my trusted keys file. Modify, compile the program, sign the binary with "C". The program now runs.
Scenario B:
BadCorp's box has DRM-like hardware which refuses to run any code not signed by BadCorp's private key B. They use a modified, signed copy of Linux as the OS. They make available the source of their modifications (which are pretty much specific to their hardware) but nobody else can modify the kernel running on a BadCorp box because they don't have key B.
I think scenario B is what the GPL v3 language is trying to forbid, and scenario A is why GPL v3 doesn't require Alan's private key to be released. However, I'm not sure what happens in
Scenario C:
BadCorp produce a box which won't run unsigned code, and which only they can add keys to the trusted keys file. DastardlyCorp produce modified GPL programs for the BadCorp box, sign the binaries with key "D" and pay BadCorp to add key "d" to the trusted keys file. DastardlyCorp won't release key "D" - "It's our private key. Get BadCorp to add your key to the box if you want to modify stuff. It is their fault, not ours, that you can't run on their box." BadCorp says "Only if you pay us money. We aren't bound by the the GPL - we don't release any GPLed software." (And BadCorp and DastardlyCorp just happen to be owned by the same people.)
Scenario D:
As above, but BadCorp unilaterally add Alan's key "a" to the trusted keys list. Now Alan can recompile for the BadCorp box, but other people can't - but Alan did not want this situation to be.
How can the license force DastardlyCorp to release their key in scenario C, but not force Alan to release in scenario D?
Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, I have not followed this controversy closely. Better informed comment is invited.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Sorry. I guess I really never looked at it that way. It's actually kinda sad, and makes me lose a bit of respect for Linus.
The fact that this topic is still under discussion shows how rediculous the FSF folks are to be pushing for a major fork in the open source community right as open source is starting to see some significant success.
Linus deserves tremendous credit for not backing down and for telling it like it is.
If you have any doubt about Linus' statement about RedHat's private keys, or if you disagree with him on that point, it's just further proof that V3 is a poorly worded, confusing mess.
Why segment the Open Source community like this? DRM is not a bad thing, and I truly resent those trying to push their Anti-DRM agenda because I think it fragments the community unnecessarily. Linus had the sense to invent Linux, and now he has the sense to defend it from those who want to capitalize on disagreement.
P.T. Barnum said, "If you want a crowd, start a fight". That is exactly what the FSF is trying to do.
Note to the FSF: Stop trying to start a fight and let Open Source proceed to dominate as a method of software licensing as it is on track to do if you don't fragment it unnecessarily.
Amazing magic tricks
Nope. If Linus is saying that a non-DRM clause is valid for content, then to me, he basically just invalidated his position. Code is art and knowledge, and as such qualifies as content. What's more, many kinds of content will be made on Linux. My vote? Fork it if Linus doesn't like GPL3, and make sure all future contributions are GPL3-licensed. Linux-GPL2 can still use those patches, if it chooses.
If someone adds a DRM to a product, it becomes illegal in the United States (DMCA) and many other countries to take it out. Because of this, by clause 7 of the GPL version 2, it seems that it's already illegal to implement a law-enforced DRM into existing GPL'd code in many countries, and distribute that program. Without that clause, for example, Microsoft could make a DRM'd Microsoft Linux that is legally protected from modification by anyone besides Microsoft. You wouldn't be sued for violating their license terms, because it'd still be under the GPL. Instead they'd sue your for breaking their DRM. Instead of them violating the GPL, the law would be violating the GPL on their behalf, and clause 7 of the GPL 2 protects against this by revoking their right to redistribute if this happens. The GPL3 just makes this more clear by saying that DRM is incompatible with the GPL.
Is it possible for parts of the Linux kernel to be GPL2 and parts to be GPL3? Its seems to me like GPL2's provisions would prevent coexistance with GPL3 -- GPL2 doesn't allow such ideological restrictions to be added to a derivative of a GPL2 work.
If so then moving the kernel to GPL3 is likely impractical. Too much code has been contributed in the form of modules and patches and while the pedigree is well documented its far from perfect, particularly on the little patches. They can be presumed to have been offered under the general terms of Linux's distribution -- GPL2. Anything else would require an explicit statement from those individual authors.
Under the circumstances, I wonder if Linus could legally release Linux under anything incompatible with the terms of GPL2 even if he wanted to.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It has nothing to do with users' freedoms, but rather with restrictions on competitors. Businesses support Linux because they know that if they add things (drivers, performance enhancements, et cetera) to Linux, their competitors WON'T be able to use it without also making their changes public. There is no incentive for a business to contribute to a BSD-style licenced project, since competitors can then use their code without restriction (except for the "advertisting" clause).
My other first post is car post.
The GPLv3 is a draft document. It is a document up for discussion and debate, after which it will may well be revised and then issued in final form.
What I find shocking is that attempts to treat this draft as a draft are promptly shouted down. Linus Torvalds is free to say whatever he wants about it, and he has already hinted that if some things were changed in the draft then most likely he wouldn't have a problem with a GPLv3.
A lot of this attempt to choke off debate in favour of take it or leave it is pretty rich - in fact, puke-making - coming from the alleged supporters of "freedom". If the attacks on Linus Torvalds continue then it won't be exactly difficult to conclude that the FSF's more rabid fans have a kind of Bolshevik agenda: force out Mr Torvalds by discrediting him and impose a new kernel on open-source Linux, and all in the name of "freedom". No thanks.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
You can't change licenses, but you can mix code with compatible licenses. Like BSD and GPL. The BSD stuff stays BSD, and the GPL stuff stays GPL. It could be that half the code in the kernel is GPL3 and half of it is GPL2. In that case, you would need to abide by the restrictions on both licenses in order to distribute it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Don't tell me you can't use Linux for DRM software if you can use Linux in a child porn video lab.
This is not a straw man. GNU has in the past rejected all moral embargos on the use of free software. See their condemnation of the Hacktivismo license, which prevents the software being used by authoritarian governments and spyware makers:
Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license.
If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free software, here would be the place to do it.
As for restricting the use of the software by governments that violate human rights, this is likely to be ineffective. There are many other programs they can use. Also, at least under US law, a copyright-based source license can't restrict use of the program; such a restriction is not enforcible anyway. Meanwhile, they can simply decide they are exempt from the restrictions.
So why is DRM a greater crime than the rest of these? Is not DRM a "use of the program"? Won't companies that make DRM be unwilling to use open-source modules anyway - or at least not re-release the source?
I really think that here is an example of the GNU's political fight (DRM and software patents are evil) outweighing their moral fight (restrictions on software are evil).
Interesting, since DRM does exactly that.
Changa hates change.
Con: Having done so, he immediately hitched a ride on the short bus and drove it to Fruitcake City.
I have a solution: Let's declare the new Stallman 2.0, and say we only support the Stallman 1.0. Stallman 1.0 was the guy who was going to give us the whole, working GNU system - the most complete version of which (HURD kernel plus GNU tools with as little of anything else as possible) I got to download and review as a live CD. And damn incomplete it is, still, when the entire rest of the FOSS world has marched ahead. Then he bitches because his GNU software doesn't get enough credit, when everybody else is putting working systems together out of the bits and pieces they can grab out of the GNU system. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, RMS is the person who wrote a damn good editor and compiler and a couple of usable licenses. The rest is schitzophrenia.
I wonder what Theo would do if Tivio switched to OpenBSD? Would he change the BSD license?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Consider a hardware-based JVM. A JVM class loader won't load unsafe code.
Now, what's "safe"? Since there are many class loaders around, "safe" can mean different things. For one loader, it means that the code must obey type safety. For another one, it means that the code must obey DRM. And indeed, DRM could be conceivably implemented in terms of type safety (people can do crazy things with types).
See? It looks like no one can distribute any Java code under GPLv3. Good job, RMS!
Thousands of people who have contributed to Linux have done so on the basis that it is released under the Linux licence (which btw is not GPL2, but a derrivative of GPL2). To **legally** change the licence you've have to track down all those contributors and get their permission. Same deal with selling the source or any other act of ownership of the source.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Why? because he named his project? Or because he protects his trademark, preventing MS Linux from being produced?
Changa hates change.
How do you conclude that RMS says people can't be trusted? If he didn't trust people, he'd distribute software under licenses that prohibit inspection, modification, and sharing. He might even restrict when the program can be run by using DRM or an encryption manager. This is what proprietors do and what RMS fights against.
Torvalds argues that programs are to suit his convenience, hence he uses whatever suits his immediate technical needs best. The reason he wrote the initial version of (what came to be called) Linux was because it served as a good learning tool and the reason he chose Bitkeeper was because he didn't like the alternatives.
Your license choice means that you're helping proprietors "restrict what the user/developer can do" by distributing a proprietary derivative. So what you distribute is free software, but it does nothing to protect that freedom for derivatives; the loss of these freedoms (as you point out) adversely impact users. Treating proprietors as charities can be a benefit if what you want is popularity above freedom preservation, but it's a risk and should be considered deeply.
Initially software was not proprietary. IBM, for instance, distributed software for mainframes that could be shared, modified, and run at any time. Proprietary software didn't come along until later. Some businesses today (such as consultancies I know of) write software that builds on copylefted free software, that software is not proprietary. So only some business will always make and distribute proprietary software, but why should society bend over to meet their desires?
That you think such restrictions are not "bad" speaks a lot about your values.
Digital Citizen
I think Linus is absolutely right.
I don't like MS world but neither do I like RMS world either. Other wants world where everything is MS, other wants world something absolutely can't be. To be absolutely be and not absolutely be are just two sides of same coin. I don't see a diffrence there.
I think I should, and everybody else too, to be able use DRM technology if I want to. RMS or some stupid license shouldn't deny it from me. Or should I move to Windows if I want to defend my right to choose?
This shouldn't be where Linux is going to. Keep the system open, let the users and developers design what there can be,
Don't say what they can't do.
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows has the trouble seen me, even I sometimes wonder why I write these line
I saw this: "...would suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes..."
Interesting that he would suggest content protection is best done by not allowing it be "protected"...Most interesting...I like it!
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
Could make for an interesting FORK! :)
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
GPL3 does _not_ forbid DRM. GPL3 does only requires a certain amount of freedom for the user. So if the users freedom is maintained DRM can still be implented and comply with GPL3.
Source: Stallman interview
the phrase you cite ("or (at your option) any later version") is not part of the GPL.
It's part of the instructions on how to use the GPL, on how to construct your copyright notice. If you contributed a file to the kernel and affixed the recommended copyright notice, then as I read it anybody could choose to use that file under the terms GPL3 if they liked. If you did not, I'm not so clear on whether this is the case.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> How can the license force DastardlyCorp to release their key in scenario C, but not force Alan to release in scenario D?
By charging them with copyright infringement if they fail to comply with the license. DastardlyCorp knew from the outset that they could not have complied with the license, therefore they should not have done what they did in the first place.
It's like agreeing to sell someone the Hope Diamond for a billion dollars when you don't own the Hope Diamond. The fact that you knew you didn't (and probably couldn't) ever get legal possession of the Hope Diamond doesn't excuse you from the contract, it merely establishes that you entered the contract with fraudulent purposes.
And yes, there might be a scenario where someone was more innocently left in a position of non-compliance, but I can't really think of a situation where that would be due to anything but a lack of due dilligence on their part.
Therefore, the court could either order them to release their private key or order damages for copyright infringement, or both.
For the record, IANAL. Get legal advice from an attourney able to represent you in your jurisdiction if you actually run into this or any other legal problem.
1. it is my technical (as a paralegal) opinion that, if Linus don't change his mind, the kernel can NEVER be relicensed GPLv3. This is because I consider that the GPL restricts the distributions of derivative works under the terms of the GPL (as per section 0) or under more liberal terms (as per section 6) and the GPLv3, at least as currently drafted, is more restrictive than the GPLv2.
2. as a corollary -- and another justification -- to (1) above, it is my technical opinion that most (at least 80%, but probably more than 90%) of the "official Linus Penguin-pee blessed" kernel source lines are, as a matter of fact, a derivative work on the continuous works of Linus Torvalds, since 1991.
3. just as RMS, I think proprietary software is bad. I think proprietary software is bad because proprietary software -- especially the kind you normally buy in a box -- is basically a scam. What is the scam? When you buy some medicine, you are paying for (P) the cost of production [normally the dominant cost factor, but at least au pair with the other cfs] + (R) the cost of research + (F) the amortization of some future research + ($) some profit to pay for the invested money. In the case of proprietary software, we have P ~~ 0. MS invested ten million dollars on MSWord (insert some version number here) and was rewarded a billion dollars by it in less than (number less than ten) years because they use their "bait and switch" tactics, their "first use for free" tactics, their "hook the kids" tactics, and their "leverage any semi-monopoly we have" tactics. Tell me, what other business uses those exact four tactics? (just like some illicit business, their profit margin is incredible)
4. in this respect, I think Free Software (and copyleft licenses) is not only more fair, but more "right", too. When you have an itch, you pay a programmer to scratch it. No strings attached other than "others must play fair too". People that PRODUCE software continue being paid to produce software, ie, to churn out LOCs. But people that just exploit the general public by sitting on a product (yeah, a nice one by a number of accounts, and this "nice" I'm saying even applies -- or applied some day -- to Windows 95) that they have done once. Imagine a perfect world, where instead of lining up MS's stockholder pockets, all the profits of MS had being used to hire more programmers!! And send them to churn out more -- and better -- code!! Get it?
5. yes, I love numbered lists.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Isn't it Linus who should be sucking his thumb and holding a blanket?
Read this post.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Isn't it interesting that people cite OSS as an escape from the licensing hell of a closed, proprietary world, yet it seems every few months brings some dramatic licensing controversy in OSS? I really wish all these issues would get sorted out, but many people--that includes RMS--expect their ideals to rule out everything in spite of lack of practicality or real-world applicability.
"Sufferin' succotash."
can be pulled with GPLv2. DastardlyCorp takes GPL software and modifies it such that it can accept plugins, and BadCorp releases closed-source plugins for it. No keys whatsoever are involved. Why nobody seems to do that?
"I agree with RMS that it should not be possible to create a device/software combo based on GPL-code where no one is able to modify the code"
But Linus doesn't agree. As he's said, he doesn't feel he has the right to tell hardware makers that they need to make open hardware that runs modified code. As long as the source is available, Linus is satisfied. Linus doesn't believe the GPL should give you the right to be able to run recompiled code on that specific hardware.
Vote for Pedro
BadCorp don't release kernels, they release hardware. To do that, they don't need Alan's private key, only the public one.
Perhaps I'm alone here. I don't use Linux because it's GPL'd or free, I use it because it is best suited to the purposes I use it for.
I'm thankful I use Windows on my desktops because I don't have to worry about political shitfights about licensing and "software needs to be free as in speech" getting in the way of me and my PC use.
Arguments and debates like this really impede productivity.
I say stick with the old GPL. It is sufficient and does not need to be changed.
"The trouble with Linus's argument, though, is that he doesn't seem to understand which keys RMS is talking about. GPL v.3 is not about disallowing developers from cryptographically signing the code they write, it's about disallowing the machine from rejecting unsigned code. In other words, RMS wants to make sure that code containing the user's (or third-party) changes can still run."
Linus knows exactly what RMS is talking about. Linus believes that companies like TiVo have the right to use GPLed software which cannot be modified on their particular hardware, as long as the modified source is available. Linus does not believe, as a software maker, he should be telling hardware makers, how they can use his software.
Vote for Pedro
Hmmm, if the shoes don't fit, make a new pair that do fit. Sounds logical to me.
(And no I did not intend the pun in the subject line.)
Note to self: little bottles in the fridge contail *VERY* hot stuff!!!!!!!
either the heir or the executor of the estate of someone now dead who retained while alive the copyright to code in the linux kernel they had written?
if not, she needn't worry.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Linux is under GPLv2 license. But it's not *owned* by Linus. Linus holds the trademarks, and owns a large portion of the code because he wrote it. But there has never been a requirement for anyone submitting changes to Linux to sign over their rights to said patch. Therefore, each and every submitter would have to approve any change of license. I can tell you now, that will NEVER happen.
I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than in software licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes.
The problem with Linus's suggestion is that it won't result in DRM-free software and standards taking hold. If some content demands that it cannot be DRMed, but the vast majority of software and file formats require DRM, then guess what will happen? The content just won't get used/consumed, in favor of other similar content that permits DRMing. There's almost no motivation in this scheme for content producers to release their content under such a license, and there's no motivation for developers to write the software. Classic chicken-and-egg problem.
The GPL v3 approach breaks that chicken-and-egg scenario by forcing the creation and adoption of DRM-free software and standards. It guarantees that the software tools will get built first, even without the content, if necessary. Then when the tools reach critical mass, the content will naturally follow.
Of course, in the end, having *both* types of licenses (DRM-free content, and DRM-free software) would be great. But the DRM-free software license (GPL v3) has to come first.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
... that this is the FSF's way of trying to "legislate" hardware vendors through their license...
It's strange that in a free-market economy, where you are free to buy whatever hardware you wish, that everyone believes that communist-like legislated freedoms are a good idea...
Where has the American dream of "do the f*ck what I like and screw the consequences" gone???
For shame!!!
The cost of converting to GPL v3 in time and effort (which is fairly high) when compared with the benefit (which is little, if any), are so enormously out of balance that it makes any change highly unlikely.
Linus's motivation and goals are very, very different than RMS's. Stallman will be satisfied with nothing short of a revolution; Torvalds just wants to create a really cool kernel. Linus will not even entertain notions of rewriting his kernel license because, and this is the important part, there's nothing wrong with his current license. Since it ain't broke, there's no reason to fix it.
RMS was, undoubtably, very disappointed over Linus's wholesale rejection of the new GPL version. It sounds like Linus didn't even bother reading it all the way through because he wasn't interested in change to begin with. It's extremely likely that others will take Linus's word on the subject as gospel (Linus being a god, and all) without bothering to read the license themselves, spelling disaster for GPL v3. What you're currently witnessing is RMS's "it's not dead yet!" effort at salvaging the GPL3.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
In the GPL, in "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION" is written:
9. (...) If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. (...)
By "you" the text means anyone who receives the source code, not the author. It is clear in the second item:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, (...)
So, anyone who receives the code (and it is indeed available to anyone...) can redistribute it under GPL3. The license is concerned in granting freedom to all developers, not (only) to the original author.
Linus has full right to block GPL v3 in the kernel. What must be noted is that the kernel is nothing without the apps that make it useful and vice versa. A large part, of which comes from GNU/FSF. I think it may be time for some of us kernel developers to seriously consider moving our focus to HURD and Mach as a viable alternative. It may take time but open source is all about "choice".
...I am sure we will have a alternative.
For all who will make a joke about HURD/MACH being dead etc...It might be worth considering that both are superior to the Linix kernel in design. Given a year of serious attention by enough serious kernel developers ( minus Linus )
"Richard M. Stallman, the GPL's primary author and founder of the FSF (Free Software Foundation), explained that he didn't understand Torvalds' objection to the GPL 3, but that, in any case, "The Linux developers can decide whether to allow use of Linux under GPL version 3. This won't directly affect other parts of the system."
and a quote from the linked article
"'If you mean keys that developers use for signing source releases, GPL v3 says nothing about them,' said Stallman."
Sometimes it's what you don't say that counts. If Linus interprets it this way, what makes Stallman think a lawyer won't argue it that way in court? Maybe he should just explicitly state that this is in no way ever to be interpreted in the manner to which Linus objects.
I also find a couple of other things interesting here
1) Stallman wants the kernel to be called Linux, and distros to be referred to as GNU/Linux. So why is he suddenly
2) Since Stallman is not a Linux developer, and Linus is a major one, wouldn't it be fair to paraphrase what he is saying as: I have no say in the matter, but Linus has a very large say in it?
I guess the truth may set you free, but it won't necessarily get the kernel released under GPLv3
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
and
Discussion Draft 1 of Version 3, 16 Jan 2006THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
HTH, HAND
You forgot to account for the Linux OS development model and the GPL 'viral' nature.
Linus puts out a version that HE lables and calls 'version X.x.x'.
Each vendor of a GNU/Linux fork port out their own version with patchs. If RedHat, SuSE and others decide to put in GPL3'd code, the whole kernel becomes GPL3. RedHat, SuSE make a USEFUL product, Linus just puts out a kernel.
Go look at older Linux kernel code. The Linus copyright was just that, copyright Linus. No license at all so as soon as GPL2'd code was added, the work became GPLed.
Stallman wants the kernel to be called Linux, and distros to be referred to as GNU/Linux. So why is he suddenly ... seemingly intentionally ... trying to make it sound like the kernel is a small (virtually insignificant, if I understand his words) part of "the system"? What system?
It sounds like you're assuming that Stallman is consistent. Contrary to what people try and say, he is actually anything but. The only real way in which he is consistent at all is with the usual four-rule screed with which he prefixes interviews.
The one thing that truly is consistent about Stallman is his desire to take credit for, and assume jurisdiction over, as much as is humanly possible...which now apparently includes the Linux kernel itself. In his arguments however he will make things more or less important on a per-incident basis, depending on how it affects his overall accumulation of recognition or authority. If he is credited for something and it can be used to increase any form of authority over people, chances are he will consider it very important. Anything which is written by other people however, (which he cannot take credit for) or which cannot be used to increase his importance will be considered irrelevant.
Silly games with forking emacs and political control of gcc and the "use no licence but mine" thing with KDE (and sulking for years after they did) put things in perspective - respect his ideas but don't follow his words blindly.
We don't need a hero - follow the good ideas and not the bad. I for one like the GPL but intensely disagree with RMS on the idea of allowing anyone to log onto any system without authentication.
See http://www.intellectualventures.com/
And from a Newsweek article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6478691/site/newsweek
Anecdotally, you don't want to ignore their first "invitation" to join their investment fund, either, I hear - it can be very, very expensive the second time they approach you...
For example, on my pet project I use GPL rather than BSD because I want to make sure that every derivative will be free-software, that's what I care about protecting. If I release content and someone has the right to make a DRM-encumbered version of it, this freedom is lost. To protect (the freedom of) that content, I use a license with anti-DRM clause.
The filesystem is the package manager
I agree. When you give something, away, there are no strings attached. GPL code is not given away, since there are a list of strings attached which increases with every revision of the license. GPL is not about real freedom, but about giving users additional freedom at the expense of producers. This socialistic definition of freedom has been with us for more than a century (since Marx, et.al.), and RMS is just regurgitating it in the realm of software.
Vote for Pedro
What if you want to develop a secure operating system that will reject unsigned code?
Then you have the chain of certificates involve the owner of the machine, not its manufacturer. If the US Government wants to require all machines in the Veterans Health Administration to run only programs signed by a government agency, that's the government's business because the government is root. I'm guessing that this GPL 3 provision was intended to address instances where you're not root on your own machine, as in the case of disc-based video game consoles and handheld video game systems sold at retail in the United States.
DRM will probably be a lot less relevent that people think since most hardware will be made in countries where it doesn't have to apply.
But countries that make DRM-less hardware likely won't be allowed to export it to developed countries. Or are you talking about a black market?
Linux still entiled to call its license the GPL?
GPL is a generic term, an abbreviation meaning a license of an exclusive right to the general public. Linus could probably call a revised Linux license (minus the GNU preamble) the "Linux General Public License", but it wouldn't be a GNU license, and it likely would not be compatible with the GNU GPL unless it is equivalent to GNU GPL with extra permissions. Or he could do something similar: grant a permission with the same effect as striking the provision against "trusted" booting.
I want to retain the ability to create my own flat files on my system and do what I want with them.
Except send them across a public packet-switched network if both the local cable company and the local DSL company require some sort of DRM handshake in order to give you an IP address. It could happen within the next decade, when "TCP/IP" begins to stand for "Trusted Computing Platform/Intellectual Property".
Any software licensed under the "any later version" can legally be relicensed under GPL v3 If the original author doesn't like that, there's nothing he can do: He can't retract the "any later version" statement. Of course, he can't retract the v2 license either, so users who acquired it under v2 can still use it for DRM, etc.
If the original author is still actively updating the program under v2 only, then anyone who relicenses it under v3 will be creating a fork. That's their absolute right, though in the case of Linux, I suspect that most users will still prefer to get the version from Linus.
Perhaps you're looking at things in a narrow way. In the grand sense, GPL'd software is the content. One of the purposes of the DRM provisions in GPL 3 is to prevent hardware manufacturers from creating devices that effectively prevent you from using the content, GPL'd software, in the way it was intended:
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Linux is the most famous GPL project, but there's no reason that GPL v3 can't survive without it. It took a long time for the original GPL to be adopted by large numbers of developers, so why should v3 be any different? I expect it'll be embraced by people like DVD Jon, writing new applications that we haven't dreamed up yet.
I don't mean to denigrate Linux, or the work of Linus and the kernel developers. He may even have made the right decision in sticking with v2, as v3 doesn't exist yet, and some of commercial distros might try to fork the kernel if he changed the license. (Everyone who uses Linux has an absolute right to release a v2 fork, and that can't be taken away by Linus or RMS.) But the GPL is more than just Linux.
Pardon me, but why the hell are we having this discussion in the first place? If the Linux community wants to adopt GPL3 and Linus doesn't, take all power away from the guy. Create flavors that run exclusively on GPL3. Force the adoption of the new protocol. Stop debating about ways to implement stuff and begin coding.
Could Linux Still Go GPL3?
Who gives a fuck? Linux is still for fags.
I think Linus is just saying that some kind of "you can't put me in DRM" clause in a creative commons license would make a lot more practical sense for the kind of stuff under those licenses than a 'Don't-use-me-as-DRM' clause in a license for software.
... Fnord.)
;)
I don't think Linus is saying that GPLed software isn't worth a "you can't put me in DRM" clause or something like that.
But first of all, most people read the current GPL as preventing any kind of source-code-DRM shenanigans (DRMed source code just wouldn't be "machine-readable source code" in the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".) And secondly, it's just not a huge deal, pragmatically speaking; there aren't any DRM systems for source code out there (Hmm... how would that work, exactly?
That's not to say that some don't-put-me-in-DRM shoring up isn't a good thing... I especially like the current draft GPLv3's laying down of the smack on distribution of software "for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License".
Anyway, I think most of the DRM-related fuss is over not that stuff but instead the I-am-not-a-technological-protection-measure section. This doesn't really go as far in the don't-use-me-as-DRM direction as people seem to think... It seems to be just a minimal incantation necessary to dispel DMCA anti-circumvention effects and no more. But still, it's getting dangerously close to stepping over the ethic against adding use conditions that RMS seems normally to support.
Questions? Comments?
I keep accidentally typing "Linus" with an 'x' on the end. What's up with that?
That's a superb example, indeed.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
What "at your option" language? FAQ != GPL
Part of the problem is RMS is stuck in the distant past. He still views everything as if it were still the early days of computing. Back when the majority of computers were used for scientific purposes and most users were hackers. Security was not a big deal. Appliances did not have computers built in. Your car was not controlled by a computer. There was no such thing as digital media. RMS still wants to ensure those types of users have full freedom to hack the machines they use.
Linus, on the other hand, works regularly with industry. He knows what the current computing world looks like. Businesses require locking down machines which users have physical access to. They must do this to ensure the security of their networks. Do you want anyone to be able to install and/or modify the software that has access to your social security number? Or someone to be able to hack their car's computer, potentially adversely affecting their drive-by-wire gas pedal, steering wheel and brakes? I know the auto companies do not want to be responsible for the litigation resulting from such innocent hacking.
It's a much different computing world than when RMS dreamed up the GPL. Views need to change with time. The GPL as it stands at least still requires sharing back with the community. Even if you can not run it on the exact hardware, I'm sure some creative hackers can find some use of the contributed code.
The question is do you want to restrict Linux to a hobbiest environment? Or do you want it to continue to thrive in commercial applications? With the second choice, the hackers of the world can continue providing a better solution that that offered by Microsoft. That to me is the right thing to do. Provide real freedom of choice for all types of users. Not create something that only a hobbiest would use.
I think Linus fails to see the distinction between protecting the authors' rights and the consumers' rights, assuming GPL3 tries to protect the authors instead of the consumers. The Anti-DRM changes in GPL3 are not there to protect authors using the GPL, they're in place to protect consumers' legal rights.
From his point of view, that of an author of software, the Anti-DRM clause holds little value indeed. I think his statements should be interpreted as such; he cares only about protecting his own rights, not those of any of his users.
I agree that the GPL3 isn't ideal place to protect these rights, but it is possibly the only place, given how the legal system itself is gradually "masking" away these rights through pro-DRM laws.
Not that it matters at all; it's practically impossible to switch the Linux kernel to GPL even if everybody, including Linus, begged for it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
s/medicine/TV set/g -- and I still disagree with you, only to say that if you're right, I think this is bad in the medicine business, too. IMHO production (of ideas or goods) should be rewarded more than the childish "I thought of it first" thing.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
All of this was done on his own whim, not as part of some obligation to the rest of the world. Just becuase thousands of people have come to rely on Linux doesnt mean he is under any obligation to support them. No one pays him a license fee to run linux.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
You're thinking along the right lines, but surely 'Lignux' (pronounced Linux) makes more sense. And if that ends up being elided to 'Linux', long term, well...
I use GPL'd software, including linux, on my job. I do not use GPL'd libraries, and try to avoid LGPL where possible, because of GPL2 issues that GPL3 is not fixing but making worse:
Open source software has advanced our digital lives immeasurably, but that doesn't mean all software has to be Open Source. I make a living from my code, I should go let my daughter go hungry because "Software wants to be free"? Software does not want anything, it is a tool.
Write software for the joy of it, without the politics or propaganda, like the rest of us, and use BSD, or Apache. I am not a heavyweight like Stallman or Linus, or even a medium weight, in the community but IMHO the GPL crowd is like the far religious right "Everone should be Christian because everyone else is wrong and will burn in Hell", or like Microsoft "Windows is the only viable OS because it's what we sell and we wrote the book".
I disagree with both ( I am a Christian and I use BSD or Apache licenses at work), because there ain't no such thing as one true way (TANSTAOTW)..wish that caught one like TANSTAAFL. Please consider those of us that need to put food on the table, food that is provided by our coding efforts when you write/right the next GPL. If the current trend continues then you will add a clause that says that anything that runs on/in Gnu software like VMs or Linux will need to be Gnu. That will be the day my employer, and I, toss out Linux (prob while I cry for the tools I love like Gimp), and switch to NetBSD. I guarantee we won't be alone. I think corporate adoption of Open Source is behind the recent upswing in its usage and growth, so force viral-licensing down our throats and expect a backlash.
I had to say this, even though I know I will be marked as flame bait. Consider this though: if it is my actual opinion, stated with passion but without rancor, and you mod it down, then aren't you in fact acting against the principles upon which GPL, and Open Source, were based?
Thank you for reading this through to the end. I hope it's provided some food for thought, and having said what I have let me also say a big thanks to the Linux community: I watched you be born, grow, and bring us software that has enriched my life as a coder, for which I am truly thankful. I just wish it was under a different license.
My *guess* is this won't happen - because the RMS crowd realize that fundamentally Linus has produced a better kernel than they could with their resources - and done an excellent job creating an environment for their free software to run on. Linus also realizes he has used their (the free software) tools to produce it.
Time for the HURD - Long live Linux.
Isn't this "retrictions on competitors" the same thing as the GP's "freedom to all users"?
Rethinking email
But does that really matter? Is it not enough that a few key parts are re-licensed under GPL3 (which I think can happily co-exist with GPL2), this would then make it impossible for sneaky companies to take the kernel and trap it in DRM, since it would be partly GPL3. If enough bits in the kernel are GPL3, then it will be too much trouble for the companies to replace them.
- barkholt
In the absense of marketplace competition, for example, the music industry, the absense of DRM is a good alternative. When you have DRM and businesses acting as a cartel, the deck is stacked against the consumer. This is wrong. Linus and the developers should reject any license which allows or requires DRM. DRM is the beginning of the end of online freedom and will bring in a new era were every page, image and opinion costs money.
there might be a scenario where someone was more innocently left in a position of non-compliance, but I can't really think of a situation where that would be due to anything but a lack of due dilligence on their part.
[...]
Get legal advice from an attourney able to represent you in your jurisdiction if you actually run into this or any other legal problem.
You seem to be saying that things are sufficiently uncertain that a developer releasing signed code under GPLv3 needs to get legal advice to determine whether or not they have to ship their private key.
Many thousands of small / individual FOSS developers will not have the resource for lawyers and for them, GPLv3 effectively bans code signing (but probably doesn't for big-nasty-corp-with-lots-of-lawyers).
That alone should damn this clause.