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.'"
I see a GPL that prevents companies from using DRM (which wasn't around for v2) to get around GPL requirements. Basically those same requirements that we liked from v2.
If Linus is fine with TiVo's method of coopting the kernel and making it for all practical purposes unmodifiable, that's his business. But lots of other people have contributed code to free software and are not.
PS: this is how I understand it so far. My opinion is subject to revision
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Firefox is only on workstations -- headless servers typically won't have a web browser; my company's certainly don't. I was thinking gcc would be a better candidate: Not only is it installed on a strong majority of Linux-based systems, but also on a large number of traditional Unix systems elsewhere.
For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.
Dude, copyright and patents are a political agenda by identity.
KFG
Only if you're one of the "evil communist world domination" GPL people :)
Us hippies prefer the peace-and-free-code-_kernel_module.
You are correct.
But is that what a software license about? Or rather; should be about? In my eyes (and apparently in Linus' eyes as well) its about fostering open development because its a better way to do things, not pursuing an agenda.
Linus isn't an activist. He's just a programmer. Sure, he made a wonderful kernel, but it's the GPL that made his kernel popular and freely-downloadable.
In any case, does it really matter if he redistributes his kernel under GPL2 or 3? It's not like it's the end of the world or anything. I think this is plainly media hype.
For all of the FSF's talk against bad copyright policy and software restrictions, this license introduces their own set as if to say, "we don't like their way; so you should definitely do it our way instead."
RMS and the FSF aren't saying saying "All your old GPLv2's are invalid and now you must upgrade to our new GPLv3!!!"
They are giving developers the options to restrict what others from restricting the next guy down the line from doing something with their work.
You don't have to use GPLv3 if you don't want to.
If someone else releases their work with a GPLv3 license and it bothers you...
Then tough. The original author has the right to release it under any license he wants be it BSD, closed source, or GPL.
If Linus doesn't want to use GLPv3 then it is his right. He can keep v2 forever. The GPL license doesn't belong to RMS. He just made up the wording of the contract that others can use to release software with.
No one is being forced to anything they don't want to...
Well other than the people who are being restricted from adding DRM and various freedom restricting to other people's work released in GPLv3.
Well if you really want that DRM so bad... Then make your own program from scratch. Don't use someone elses open source code whose express wish is to not have his work used in ways he did not mean it to.
GPLv3 gives the original author this ability.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Simply put: they are "zealots" for lack of a better term. For them, free software is less about open source and open development and more about a form of political agenda.
Stallman repeatedly states that software freedom is his goal, and not its widespread adoption by "practical minded" corporations. He has nothing against corporations if they do not interfere with his primary goal. That make's him a zealot, I guess. I call it clear thinking. Time and again he has been proven correct in the face of criticism.
an ill wind that blows no good
Yes! I'm confused as to how Linus gets this part wrong. Mad scientists (or the military, or Microsoft, etc.) can use modified GPLv3 code however they want. However, if they try to distribute the code to the public (they sell software, or hardware with software on it), then they have to make it possible for the recipients to:
1. See the code.
2. Modify the code.
3. Run the modified code.
Private shark zoos are not subject to any restriction. Shark salesmen, however, would be required to make the source available, so that you could modify the way your shark-laser system works.
The TiVo example is a better one. If I buy a TiVo, and it uses GPL code, then I should be able to modify that code and run the modified code on that hardware. Their modifications are functionally useless to me (to the world) if I cannot run the modified code on the hardware. Yes, in theory I could build my own TiVo from scratch... but that's not practical. So why should GPL programmers license their code that way?
GPLv3 is anti-evil-DRM in which the GPL would be circumvented by DRM methods. Such as providing you with the source code by unable to compile/run it because of DRM. Yet GPLv3 as I understand it does not say you can not include DRM in your software, you are free to do so.
I just find Linus too trusting of business. You would think he would have learned his lesson with BitKeeper but in the end I think he blames Andrew Tridgell instead of BitMover. Even RMS may be too distrusting of business, but isn't it better to be safer than sorry?
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Why the facination with Mr. T's thoughts on the GPL? He really isn't that big of a believer in Open Source. It just happened to be the vehicle that propelled him to fame. IT IS HIS RIGHT TO NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT OPEN SOURCE!
/. seems to have about pretending there is this big NEW rift in the open source movement with Stalmans GPL v3? There is no rift, you have Stallman who is a believer, and Linus, who couldn't really give a crap as long as he can keep working unencumbered. That is why he chose bitkeeper, again, that is his right, as long as he does not pose as an Opensource poster boy(I don't think he usually does).
But what is this thing that
No, one of the fundamental GPL v3 changes is, by intentional design, antithetical to the continued proliferation of Linux in certain types of embedded devices, including TiVo-like devices, set top boxes, etc. Thus, there is and always will be a fundamental tension between RMS's notion of ideal freedom and the Linux community's goal of "Linux everywhere".
This isn't something that can be changed by a simple wording change. IMHO, GPL v3 is basically DOA as far as the kernel is concerned; you can pretty much be guaranteed that if Linus did try to push GPL v3 into the kernel, all the embedded Linux developers would fork, and that fork would result in some really ugly politics and a very dramatic decline in the number of Linux (v3) kernel developers.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The FSF folks would be ecstatic to have busnesses actually embrace the open source model, be commercial, and sell lots and lots of support, installation, and maintenance for software that is still modifiable by the end customer.
People keep trying to paint the FSF folks as anti-commercial, or anti-business. They are most assuredly not. They are trying to educate companies and the public about a better way to do software, whether as a business or not.
And neither companies nor people should adopt FSF principals out of altruism. They should adopt them because they realize that once customers understand what the free software rights really do for them, they will begin to demand them by not doing business with companies that don't grant them. Just as you wouldn't buy a car from a dealer if you could only ever get it fixed at that dealership (for whatever rates they choose to charge), you will stop buying software that can only be modified by that software company. It doesn't mean you won't go to the dealer for some or all repairs, it just means you don't want to be forced to.
Of course, pushing the car analogy, this only really happens when you become aware of local car repair companies. And this is where companies like IBM can really help -- by offering the "Jiffy Lube" of free software -- a national, well known chain of software maintenance, configuration, and repair for open source.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
You seem to be making the same mistake that I see time and time again on Slashdot and other geek sites. You assume that DRM is about protecting music and video. It's not. DRM is all about controlling applications, not data. Data doesn't do anything... code does. To implement DRM you must control what *exact* piece of code can access a piece of data -- and refuse access if it is not authorised (ie. it has not been signed by a controlling authority).
In short, in a "Trusted Computing" world (which is what the GPL v3 is directly aimed at mitigating) your applications are checked that they don't do anything that the key controller doesn't want you to do (could literally be anything at all), then signed and authorised by a central authority.
Trusted computing and DRM is about stopping you from modifying and recompiling code. It's that simple. Stallman and FSF understand this, but there are lots of computer geeks who still can't quite grasp the breadth of what DRM and trusted computing is and what it will do. It's about time they realised.
"Zealots" again. Why cant you just use another word to qualify Stallman actions? Like CONSISTENT with his beliefs, STEADY in his view of Free Software.
RMS did not change his views on developping software to empower users. The world of Open Source Software did and is in great danger of falling in the same trap again. This time DRM/DMCA and patents are the trap set by the corporations to gain control of OtherPeople IP (TM).
RMS does not force you to abide by his rules. You can use whatever license you want and he wont have a say about it. Give the same respect to him.
RMS does not call the proprietary leaders as "zealots", just "Hard Working Capitalist Businessmen Who Like to Ride the Curtains Of Other People IP (TM)". Shit he isn't even calling them or you anything.
Respect is the fondation for all civil discussion.
Regards,
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
The GPL v3 is aimed at ensuring that you always have the right to modify a GPL v3 program and still have it work as it did. That's all. It's rather unfortunate that lots of people hear the term "DRM" and immediately think of music/video piracy, because DRM is really about the control of applications, and preventing you from modifying them.
You see, one of the main aims of the GPL v3 is to stop Trusted Computing from being used *against* the owner of a machine. With the previous version of the GPL, it's quite possible for the likes of IBM to build computers based around Linux, which you cannot modify. You can't recompile the kernel, because the hardware will reject it, or at the very least report that it is "untrusted". You can't recreate the software because you can't sign the binary. You have lost the right to modify that program. DRM comes into it because DRM is all about preventing the modification of code and controlling the code that can access certain data (and, btw, need I remind you that code is also digital data and subject to DRM).
Stallman and the FSF have cut right to the heart of the DRM argument. It's a shame that so many, including Torvalds and lots of apparently smart people on Slashdot, haven't... and still think it's an argument over ripping DVDs and CDs.
The discussions over the GPL v3 are valuable in that regard, because they are flushing out all these issues into the open. None of the tech companies want to talk about it... including IBM and, I should add, Linux distributors like Red Hat. We must force them to.
Just to throw my two cents in, that's exactly how I read it as well.
The thing is, if we really do get "Linux everywhere," enough people are going to want to start hacking that it'll create an economic incentive to cater to the hackers. Witness the Linux variant of the WRT54G.
IMHO, DRM will only die by collapsing under its own weight, and by heightening consumers' awareness of the issues. Fighting DRM head on by denying access to its underlying technologies (when, as Linus states, those technologies themselves aren't inherently evil) isn't going to work.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
I was rather disappointed with the following quote:
It's not so much I generally care about being able to change my PVR's firmware to unofficial/open source releases it's just that doing so can sometimes be beneficial and add value (example: routers -> OpenWRT etc) and, well, being able to do this is just cool. I guess this disappointement is because I like hardware hacking as much as I do software.
may be perceived as downright anti-commercial by a number of people,
Since when exactly has the FSF been concerned about be perceived as anti-commercial? Its been like 20 some years of them fighting "what's good for business".
RMS "Pragmatically speaking, thinking about greater long-term goals will strengthen your will to resist this pressure. If you focus your mind on the freedom and community that you can build by staying firm, you will find the strength to do it. ``Stand for something, or you will fall for nothing.''
Pretty much sums it up. I'm sure RMS doesn't like talking to lawyers either, he just has Beliefs and convictions that force him to. (No offense Mr MOGLEN)
I will adopt GPL v3 as soon as finalized. I have much more faith in the "Ramblings" of RMS than the casual "Who Cares" of Linus. Great as the kernel might be. Without the Convictions of Stallman and GPLv2, Most of us would still be Running Proprietary OS's and paying for several different Compilers and toolsuites and Graphical toolkits, ad infinitum. We have those choices now because Stallman sat down with a few lawyers despite his distaste for authority. There is something to be said about beating the big guys with their own stick, Software Licenses
Note to Article Author: I believe GCC is a little more popular (at least in terms of users) than Linux or Firefox. And that was written by?
Ramble on RMS
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
If Torvalds declared he was simply walking away from it all, one really couldn't blame him considering the sometimes disgusting criticism levelled at him. And what has he done, apart from helping to give the world a free operating system, inspiring the open source movement and saying simply "Please treat me with the freedoms and respect I extend to you"?
Mr Torvalds is just one guy, an engineer with an optimistic, congenial outlook on life, not a professinal advocate or evangelist with a foundation or six behind him full of law professors. Have Lessig and Moglen condemned some of the personal criticism levelled at Torvalds or would that be too much like hard work?
Yet as a hard-working regular guy Torvalds has a better grasp of daily realities than many of his critics. Tightening up on software patents is a good idea, but rejecting DRM as the devil's work is a poor idea, perhaps simply immature. As the underdog in this affair he gets my support every time. If a better, revised GPLv3 emerges, one that two people or more can actually understand and agree upon, which is more than can be said for the present draft, then Torvalds will deserve our gratitude for sticking up for what he believes despite the hyena-like behaviour of some in the open source world.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
You are ignorant. You don't know the difference between free software and open source. Learn more about it. Start here and here. Free software is about freedom... Freedom is, among other things, a human right and civil liberty and should be part of any political agenda.
But let's call a spade a spade here and look at what GPLv3 is about: attempting to hide attempts to restrict developers under the guise of being an update to the world's most popular open source license.
The GPL has always been restrictive in specific ways. And version 3 does have additions to its restrictive nature. Read why. You don't have to agree with him but at least your not ignorant. If GPL is too restrictive for you then don't use for your code.
Let me rephrase your two categories, while trying to preserve the essential meaning.
First, DRM can be used to help stop people from breaking the law, e.g. by making copies beyond what is permitted by fair use.
Second, DRM can be used to restrict users from exercising rights that otherwise would be theirs by law, such as making fair use copies of copyrighted material or running a copy of a program that they have purchased.
Unfortunately, all existing DRM seems to fall into both categories or exclusively into the second category. Perhaps the wild-eyed idealists are the ones who are considering how DRM might in theory be used, rather than how it is used in practice.
He doesn't. The Linux kernel hasn't been under his exclusive copyright for most of its existence. Not even his fork is under his copyright alone because he doesn't collect copyright assignments from contributors to his fork. This seems to me to be right in line with the general lack of foresight and considerable confusion about software freedom I've come to associate with him (see his use of Bitkeeper and his objection to Andrew Tridgell's work on a Bitkeeper repo pulling program for other examples).
All the more reason why Forbes should have interviewed people who are deep thinkers about issues relevant to the GPL: RMS, Eben Moglen, or someone from the FSF who could have spoken with more insight and a clear understanding of what the license is meant to achieve. Interviewing Torvalds about licensing is usually fruitless because he gets another chance to demonstrate how much he doesn't understand the goals of the license and how much he doesn't agree with what he doesn't understand.
He claims that use of GPL-covered programs is restricted by the first draft of GPLv3: "You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version.". That is a good thing because that's critical to software freedom. His criticism is confusing: he professes to want to be allowed to fix things, yet he criticizes along the lines of preventing people from stopping users to be able to fix things. He also doesn't seem to understand that others might want to tinker things he doesn't want to tinker with (a dishwasher or a DVR). Heaven forbid anyone wants to change the length of a wash, rinse, or dry cycle or a DVR that only deletes recorded programs when the user says to do so.
He views the GPLv2 as a contract: "However, I don't think that's part of my GPLv2 contract." and Eben Moglen made it quite clear in his detailed discussion of GPLv3 that the GPL has not been and will not be a contract. There's even a section in the draft GPLv3 called "Not a Contract". I'd rather take Moglen's legal advice than Torvalds', particularly when it comes to interpreting the GPL.
It's also hard to take Torvalds' complaints seriously because he refuses to become a part of the year-long revision process, even by submitting comments to the GPLv3 FSF site.
GNU/Linux isn't a fork, it's the GNU operating system featuring the Linux kernel. This is distinct from the GNU operating system featuring a kernel from one of the BSD systems, or the official GNU operating system which runs with the HURD.
Digital Citizen
Why not? It's the data and binaries in the payroll system that need to be secure, not the source code.
That is all.
"If the "Or later clause" is present, then the embedded developers are SOL, because their own fork must also include the "Or later" clause"
3 .html
No. You're missing the point of multiple licenses. If you distribute software to me that says GPL2 or later, it means that I can redistribute with any of GPL2, GPL3, or any future version. What I can't do is add "or later" to software that was licensed strictly GPL2.
It's the same as if you distributed software to me with a BSD or GPL clause. I can redistribute the software in something with a BSD license that is not GPLed.
Stallman talked about this at the bottom of http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl