Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus on GPL3 In Forbes

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the rehashing-bad-blood dept.

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.'"

3 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Somewhat Dupe ... by karvind · · Score: 5, Informative
    Our earlier slashdot stories unless he explains more ..

    Torvalds Explains Dislike For GPLv3

    Linus Says No GPLv3 for the Linux Kernel

  2. Crap, another question ...I have a lot to learn by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Informative
    GPLv3 code "crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version"

    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
  3. GPL v3 makes compliance verifiable by quentin_quayle · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.