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.'"
First off, please forgive my ignorance, but is it really *that* important for Linus to decide to move Linux from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Just because version 3 of the license becomes available does not automatically invalidate the version 2 license does it? Why is this such a hot button issue?
For the most part, I completely agree with Torvalds on his points--and I can't say I'm at all surprised to see Stallman and the FSF take this direction with version 3. 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.
Now I'm not trying to bash Stallman or the FSF, they have made some wonderful contributions to the community. 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. 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."
Too much politics and agenda and not enough open source development.
I'm not sure....would maybe Firefox have more overall users? Seems that it's on 80-90% of Linux boxes, plus an ever growing number of Windows machines and other OS's as well.
\/\/oobie
I don't think it's a matter of right and wrong, but a battle of ideas between purist "ivory tower" types and the real-world that has legitimate needs for OSS and the business community to work together. Like I said before, if you think that businesses like IBM have purely altruistic motives for supporting Linux and OSS then you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Businesses have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money. Linux/OSS is a means to an end. But in the meantime, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
ConsultingFair.com
I wonder if Linus even has the real authority to unilaterly switch to an alternative license. I don't think so. By his own admission he is not a deep thinker about the philosophical (he says polical) part of the job. Many of his colleagues are. Any change would have to be accepted by the core kernel developers. If not a fork is all but inevitable (GNU/Linux anyone?). My guess is he will talk like this from time to time but will be under pressure to maintain the status quo.
an ill wind that blows no good
Looking at those disconcerting trends, I very much support the GPL v3's approach to software patents. But when it comes to DRM, I think the FSF goes too far and addresses an issue for philosophical reasons that isn't worth it. DRM is a lot more legitimate per se than software patents are. Categorically opposing DRM may be perceived as downright anti-commercial by a number of people, and it's a move that I fear will only hurt the FSF and the GPL without changing anything about the fact that DRM is here to stay.
Unfortinatly the BSD code in the Windows (ftp client etc.) is probably the most widely distributed open code. (The GNU coreutils must also beat gcc, but don't forget all the embedded devices that may be running vertually nothing on top of Linux)
Right at the end:
Are you participating in the GPLv3 process?
No, I'm not actively involved. And it's not so much because I couldn't be, it's more because I just can't find it in me to care too deeply. I'm the kind of person who hates office politics. 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.
Like I remember installing Ubuntu once and gcc wasn't on it. Some other nontechnical-user-oriented distros I've seen were like that. They assume you'll use package managers to do everything?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version. And that's my gripe.
Call me a fanatic, but open source isn't worth crap if it can't be redistributed. This is _THE_ principle of open source, that anyone can make AND RUN their own version. There are business-ready licenses out there, but the GPL was made to perpetuate the programmers' and users' freedom.
I think Linus needs a reality check. Perhaps a few months of working for Microsoft will make him realize his mistakes. There ARE evil people, evil corporations trying to take over the world, just look at the patent business.
I'm kinda disappointed after reading this, I always had seen Linus as a hero, and thought he was as enthusiastic about open source as many of us were. Sad to see he's just yet another programmer who went corporate, like Steve Jobs. He just happened to cooperate with the open source movement.
Oh well. We should be thankful he's still cooperating, and consider him an ally rather than a leader.
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.
The GPL does not require the licensor to allow the licensee to run modified code on particular hardware. It is not there, ergo it is not a requirement.
Arguments that it was an unintentional or unenvisioned loophole are wholly unpersuasive. RMS was fully aware that compiled code could be burned onto a PROM and incorporated into a hardware device to create a closed platform when he conceived of the GPL concept (whichever version you care to cite prior to the v3 draft). RMS was perfectly aware that the Xerox printer driver that so incensed him interfaced with Xerox printer software built into the printer. RMS, like most technically oriented computer users, also had to be aware that the PostScript software installed in various printers was more than simple firmware. RMS had ample opportunity to write the license that he intended, and he did not write the license that ought-to-have-been. Whatever his current stance, the license-that-is is the license that has gained such popularity and it now has a life independent of RMS and others of like mind.
You may not see a negative, but the business community certainly does. Considering that the business community is the one paying for support for GPLed software and purchasing GPL products, I fully expect to see GPL v2 versions of any commercializable collaborative apps exist far into the future. Whether you release particular code under GPL v3 or not, others can examine the code, document its interfaces, describe its processes, and rewrite it under GPL v2. Give RMS credit where credit is due, because he has created a software license that even he himself cannot defeat.
Morally, Linus is on the wrong side of the DRM battle, since he supports it (and is willing to be used as a PR pawn by Forbes), however Pragmatically, he's on the right side of the battle, since DRM is ineveitable and perhaps by doing their bidding, the robber barons^W^W business world will allow him to continue living^w coding.
Stallman may be right morally, but so was John The Baptist; and look at what happened to him.
No, you can still sell the services of a machine that has GPL3 and not release your code. You can take a already take a machine that runs GNU/Linux modify it up one side and down the other, and not release a thing. Software copyrights also allow you to do this. That's why most companies like Microsoft won't sell you a copy of software, instead they "license" it to you.
..."Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department", says Wernher Von Braun...
GPL kicks in only when you want to *publish*. If you want to publish a hybrid of your code and GPL code, like the Tivo kernel, you have to release source code. If you don't want to do that, you can release your product as closed source which is installed as a separate product from the Linux kernel.
That's basically what Tivo does with a twist. They've imbedded DRM into their kernel such that the kernel source is available, but you need their keys to unlock the content on the box. People have hacked around this, but it's a pain.
GPL3 is trying to fix this. Under it, Tivo wouldn't be allowed to use GNU/Linux unless the released code to everything necessary to make a Tivo work. Tivo, the company, is perfectly free to continue using the source they've already got, and to only release what they've already released, but they wouldn't be able to use new drivers and features that are GPL3'd.
Linus is using the Von Braun defense.
P.S. The other thing that GPL allows the end user to do, is to buy one copy and to run it on as many machine as they want to. Ordinary copyright and software licenses don't allow this.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
In the case of the first, there's no point in TiVo releasing code complete with any modifications. You can't use it anyway.
There's been a similar thread discussing companies working around the GPL recently on my local LUG mailing list. In this case, discussion concerns a piece of hardware which uses GPL'd code but requires a hacked GCC to compile.
The theory is:
"The code says:
int do_something(void) {
#DO_SOMETHING
}
The compiler is hacked to insert the real code when it sees #DO_SOMETHING. The company which distributes the compiled source code doesn't distribute a compiler, so is not obliged to release the source code for the compiler itself, thus providing an end-run around the GPL."
How true this is, I don't know. It's speculation. Please don't mod me up just because you think this makes sense!
Essentially, GPLv3 adds a "Don't take the piss" clause. AIUI, the problem is putting this in legal parlance.
Linus is very confused. DRM is not necessary to protect your diary, and it is very easy to see why. I wrote down my thoughts here:
s _got_it_wrong_on_drm
http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/marcus/weblog/linu
BTW it costs $100 a year to be a member. Now... is that DRM? Can you prove to your nervous IP lawyer that it isn't?