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.'"

Comments

Re: From my vantage point

[XanC]

From my vantage point (and I may well be missing something important), it looks like the anti-GPL3 sentiment comes from a misinterpretation about encryption keys. If that's clarified, either in people's heads or the wording or both, I don't see any real negatives.

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.

Sweet! Zealot B.S. for the 7,000th time

[Mateo_LeFou]

GPLv3 is closing loopholes, see the TiVo example, by which people could use other people's work and ignore their obligations under the license, i.e. by making the code modifiable but making modified versions of the code unrunnable.

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

I was thinking gcc.

[cduffy]

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.

Re:Couple of things here...

[kfg]

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

Zealotry can be good

[amightywind]

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.

Bitkeeper anyone?

[John Jamieson]

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!

But what is this thing that /. 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).

Re: From my vantage point

[dgatwood]

Not a misinterpretation, a legitimate difference of opinion. RMS wants to make sure that GPLed software can be recompiled by the end user and replaced with an altered version, which is why that was put in the license. By contrast, Linus wants TiVo to continue using the Linux kernel, and TiVo doesn't want to allow users to create custom kernels and still have a usable TiVo, as the ability to do so would potentially allow users to easily break their DRM scheme.

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.

Commercial vs. Proprietary

[mengel]

You're falling for the classic confusion here (which the FSF "purists" are trying to correct) that doing commercial software somehow requires being proprietary.

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.

Linus RMS

[MrCopilot]

Linus "I'm pretty happy with the GPLv2, and I just don't have the motivation or inclination to start talking to lawyers. I'm a programmer. I worry about kernel bugs."

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

Re:See the crusaders march

[frank_adrian314159]

Do employees get the source code for their payroll system if it runs on Linux?

Why not? It's the data and binaries in the payroll system that need to be secure, not the source code.