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."

Comments

Alan Cox's View

[TheRaven64]

Ping Wales is carrying Alan Cox's views on GPLv3 and DRM.

Re:Fix the headline for God's sake!

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Torvalds & Stallman and V3GPL

[mrchaotica]

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.

This issue is irrelevant to Linus or any other developer who uses an open system. It's just designed to keep linux-based devices (like TiVos and cellphones and Linksys routers) from getting DRM designed to stop users from exercising their rights to modify the code running on their machines.

Re:if you don't like GPL 3, fork the license.

[Vellmont]

AFAIK, the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF. That means that if you can't write a derivate work by them without their explicit permission.

This is specifically covered by the free software foundation. The short answer is it's fine, just call the license something else. Here's the text:

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
        You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

        If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.

        Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.