Slashdot Mirror
Linus on GPL3 In Forbes
musicon writes "In an interview via e-mail with Forbes, Torvalds discusses GPLv3, digital rights management and sharks with laser beams. From the article: 'I'm sure changes will be made [to GPLv3]. The fact that the FSF and I have some fundamentally different views of what the GPLv2 was all about makes me worry that we won't find a good agreement on the next version.'"
Torvalds Explains Dislike For GPLv3
Linus Says No GPLv3 for the Linux Kernel
Picture this....with the or later clause: OpenSource code licensed GPL2 on 3/09/06 New code added to this code starting 3/10/06 with a license switch to GPL3 Sure...you can get the version from 3/09/06 but the new additions will be under GPL3. That is how it is done.
If I understand it right, and I prolly don't, you can install any modified version whatsoever on your sharks. Your obligations re: making keys available etc. do not kick in until you distribute the modified version. i.e. if you're a shark salesman rather than a mad scientist.
Is that right?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You can't do that. With the "or later" clause, the end user gets to decide which license they will use.
Unless you actually own the copyright you can't modify the license, so you can't take away the end user's right to choose GPLv2.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Once you add your own code and upgrade the license to V3, I think that it's possible to effectively lock it into a V3 license. I could revert to the original v2.1 cidem code, but if I want to use your new code, I'd be pretty much stuck with V3.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The trouble is that Linus is the poster boy for the Open Source Movement, which is a thing distinct from the Free Software movement started by RMS. And it seems that, to surprisingly many people (from the leaders of IBM right down to the average Slashdotter) the idea of "Open Source" is a lot more palatable than "Free Software." As a result, many people have lost sight of the fundamental problems that Free Software was conceived to address. Linus, by his own admission, doesn't care about those problems, and precisely because his program is so widely used, people tend to listen to him, perhaps more than they should.
Suppose a vendor creates a distro, Blue Hat. It's designed for platform P but P is made to require binaries signed by Blue Hat, it won't run anything else. Now Blue Hat releases a body of source code and claims to have complied with GPL v.2.
Now has Blue Hat complied with GPL v.2? No one outside Blue Hat can know. The only way to verify that some source corresponds to the binary you're running is to compile it and run the result. If you can't do that without a key, and Blue Hat won't give you a suitable key, they could violate GPL with impunity.
It doesn't require that BH give up their ultimate private key, just one sufficient to sign source. This is all that GPL 3 requires in regard to DRM and keys.
It's actually pretty simple. Portions of code licensed as "GPL v2 or later" can be incorporated into a GPL v2 program or a GPL v3 program. Portions of code licensed as GPL v2 only can only be incorporated with GPL v2 programs (or other licenses compatible with GPL v2, of which I believe there are precious few). GPL v3 is not strictly compatible with GPL v2, because it "adds additional restrictions." When you integrate GPL v2-or-later code into a GPL v3 program, the result is GPL v3.
This is sorta like how BSD-minus-advertising-clause is "compatible" with GPL, in that such BSD code can be integrated into a GPL v2 program without violating the BSD license. The result is a GPL v2 program, though. You can't take GPL v2 code and integrate it into a BSD-licensed program and end up with something BSD-licensed, because of the requirements GPL places on requiring source with redistribution. Relicensing as BSD removes that requirement and thus violates the license on the GPL v2 code.
As a user, the only impact of the "GPL v2 or later" clause is that I can pick which ever one suits my fancy. As it stands, GPL v3 places more restrictions on what I can do with the code than GPL v2, so as a user I'll probably pick GPL v2. If GPL v4 were to come along and say "Do whatever you like, you may as well consider this code public domain," then I as a user could go hog wild with it.
As far as migrating the Linux kernel or any other GPL v2 app to GPL v3.... If the license on a bit of code is "GPL v2 or later," then it's trivial to make future versions "GPL v3 only." You can't "take back" the GPL v2-or-later versions, but you can make future versions GPL v3, removing the support for GPL v2. In Linux, portions of the kernel are GPL v2-or-later, so those portions can become parts of GPL v3 apps easily. The bulk of the kernel is GPL v2-only (w/ binary kernel module exception). So to bring the kernel into GPL v3 land, Linus would have to talk nearly everyone into either relicensing the kernel as GPL v2-or-later or GPL v3.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
I hope Forbes will let Richard Stallman explain his reasons for including anti-DRM provisions in GPLv3.
Otherwise, it seems that Forbes is biased and acting in the interests of the Intel, Sony, Tivo and other business interests that want to hijack the hard work of open source developers in order to hancuff users and consumers with draconian treatcherous computing.
But then again, writing stories that are merely disguised propaganda for the business cartels is nothing new for Forbes.
I watched some of the explanations on GPL3 given by RMS and Moglen here, and they seemed fairly adamant about the fact that GPL3 did not forbid the use of DRM-ish encryption/authentication in code that falls under it, just that any keys necesary for running it need to be given to the user.
Same deal for Trusted Computing-esque machines; it's perfectly fine to make a machine that uses keys to restrict usage of the machine maker's code that falls under GPL3, as long as they give the keys to the end-user. It's even fine to make a seperate key for each and every machine, only give it's unique key to one single end user tied to his or her machine. Just as long as the end-user gets those keys: Or as the GPL3 licence puts it: Reading through the DRM clause it mentions "no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy" which is already "illegal", so you wouldn't be allowed to do it anyway, and "[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" which you wouldn't be allowed to do anyway, without breaking the licence.
Or is this dispute about some other part of the new licence?