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.'"
sudo apt-get install sharks-with-lasers_kernel_module
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
Welcome our laser beam-wearing shark overlords!
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
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.
Torvalds Explains Dislike For GPLv3
Linus Says No GPLv3 for the Linux Kernel
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Due to the public outcry GPLv4 will no longer include sharks with laser beams. They have been replaced with Sea Bass. Extremely ill-tempered sea bass.
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)
Analogy: democracy, as it turns out, is pretty. Who'dathunkit? Monarchies & dictatorships are very efficient by comparison.
Did you know there are higher values than "efficiency"?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Instead of calling it GPLv3, make it PRPLv1 (People's Revolutionary Public License) or whatever. It kind of obviates the problem. Linus is right in regard to the GPL being about (in probably most people's minds) open exchange of software, not some kind of general libertarian revolution. Restricting use of the software in other ways is a major step that should be a different license.
I would imagine the Linux kernel is used on more computers (desktop + servers) than Firefox and gcc isn't actually a requirement for a lot of the cited platforms that it runs on. Saying the Linux kernel is the most popular open source program might be incorrect, but I don't think we can know for sure that any others beat it without an actual accurate survey
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.
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
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 may well be 100% correct as I am reading people's interpretations and have no desire to peruse the legalese of the actual license.
Then don't call the people who hold one of the two opinions "fringe", and associate them with disparaging metaphors like ivory towers, and imply that they don't know how to function in the real world, and ... and ... and ...
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.
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
Am I correct about what exactly TiVo did?
-grabbed whatev version of the kernel
-modified it, presumably to use their hardware efficiently
-made their code available somehow, in accord w/GPLv2 obligations
but
-included a secret key or something so that only TiVo's code actually works TiVos? i.e. there's nowhere to test/run your modified version of it?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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.
I was this close to giving up. Thanks for the links, too. read a couple of 'em before, but they cheer me up anyway.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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'
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.
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.
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.
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!
$ dmesg
sharks-with-lasers: module license 'mad scientist' taints kernel.
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)
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.
In all fairness, I really don't have a fundamental problem with DRM, what I have a problem with is when someone figures out how to bypass or hack a DRM scheme and goes to jail. I think the GPL needs to protect people from that just as it protects people from going to jail and being fined if they copy and add to other peoples modifications of GPL'd code.
I have confidence that GPL3 would protect me from that, I'm not so sure about GPL2. My world really does have room for DRM and the GPL, just not DRM backed by government thugs.
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.
Um... he hasn't tried yet. His efforts are still in the planning stages. And his GNU software might not be quite as prolific as the Linux kernal, but it's pretty close.
Linus is a reactionary. He plainly said so in the article when he made the statement
Hey, I'm flexible. Some people call it being indecisive, but personally, I think it's a sign of intelligence when a person is able to change his mind when circumstances change. So I always leave the door open, even if it's just a crack.
So yeah, he may not be pro-active about these "freedom" issues, but if/when the hardware manufacturers start fuck with his baby, you can bet that he'll sign on to the lovely license that RMS has worked so hard to have waiting for him. And in the meantime, he'll be as diplomatic as possible.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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
Is it just me, or is the comment from Linus about inteligent people can change their minds a dig at Bush?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
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?
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
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.
The whole argument is mostly moot since they couldn't possibly get all the contributors to agree to change the license anyway.
Apparently some have now passed on to the great software house in the sky. Could be rather difficult to get their consent.
That's only true if your business happens to be non free software. The FSF advocates the use of free software for commercial ends, such as embedded systems. All they care about is preserving user freedom. This has negative implications for a few greedy companies that don't have the imagination required to make money without violating their customers. It's great for the rest of us and companies like IBM, which made $5,000,000,000 on free software consulting last year.
You can whine all you want, but name calling won't change a thing or win you any more customers.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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
But the first example:
Doesn't the DMCA prevent you circumventing the md5 sumcheck? How does TiVO describe this part of the code -- which I guess is kind of a BIOS? and presumably TiVO's proprietary code?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
mad_scientist is completely compatible with the GPL, provided you load the wild_haircut and mismatched_socks modules first.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If it is named the same, people would expect that it has the same purpose. Now we have just a version number difference, even if it is a highest level version number. Maybe we should name it the GSL or GRMSL instead. Then we should have less problems with it :)
I stick with the BSD license so this never-ending dance is completely immaterial.
Why not? It's the data and binaries in the payroll system that need to be secure, not the source code.
That is all.
Which makes it nearly impossible for Linux to be licensed under GPLV3 anyway...
I used term GNU/Linux with a bit of an ironic twist because Linux might actually because a GNU program if the project forked and making the term GNU/Linux more palatable to those today who are so opposed to it.
an ill wind that blows no good
First of all, most of the Linux kernel does not have the "V2 or later" clause. Even if it did it wouldn't hurt the current device makers: what they are doing is making a device, say a VCR, that uses GPL software but won't run unless it is signed with a secret key. The draft GPLv3 wouldn't allow this, but the user deciding treat the software as being under v3 isn't going to help him after he's bought the crippled hardware in the first place.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
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
WOW! I'm blown away by this. I would suspect that this let the lawyers be lawyers and the programmers be programmers attitude is a difficult realization for someone like Torvalds to come to. Anyone who has written a program has faced this issue, most likely on a smaller scale (in my case a much much smaller scale).
Torvalds life's work has some very deep reach.
I bet he is much happier going down this path.
I wonder if Mr. Gates is happy?
"Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
Partly. Another part is that the kernel *IS* under GPL version 2, and there is no provision for allowing it to be extended to a later version. This means that in order to relicense the kernel as a whole (rather than pieces of it) it would be required to get ALL the copyright holders to agree. Isn't going to happen.
Another part, of course, is that Linus has NEVER been philosophically committed to the GPL rather than to, say, the BSD. His choice of the GPL for Linux was pragmatic, based on the gcc & its libraries. So he really isn't personally interested in moving to a new GPL version...not unless he needs to.
So. He isn't interested, and it would be difficult or impossible anyway. And he REALLY isn't interested. What do you expect him to say? (Remember: He's also a good manager, and doesn't want to unnecessarily rile the troops.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The actual technology is exactly the same technology that allows you to encrypt your "dear diary," where you tell your diary all your most secret fears and all the heinous thoughts you had that you would never act out, but that you don't want people to even know you thought. At that point, it's not DRM anymore, it's privacy. See? It's technically pretty much the same thing.
Well, copy restrictions and "dear diary" both involve encryption, but similarities stop there. I don't take my diary, encrypt it, and then give the diary and decryption key to anyone who's willing to buy them from me. I don't sell anyone who wants it the decryption key, while telling him that he can only decrypt my diary in certain ways and under certain conditions, and that he is not free to give the decryption key to his buddies.
No, with "dear diary," I keep the key to myself. With "DRM" I sell the key and then restrict rights to use it. That's a huge difference.
Penny - plain text accounting
Technically, the GPL is his due to copyrights, but he GPL's the GPL (except for the preamble; you need to email/write to GNU to use it in a modified GPL).
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I understand what you were getting at, but I don't think that would help spread the idea of giving GNU a fair share of the credit for the operating system. What opponents find more palatable would only confirm their misunderstanding, not help spread how things actually happened or give fair credit. Those who are opposed to using the term "GNU/Linux", are likely to react by saying how such a term would confirm the idea that Linux is an operating system and that this so-called "Linux system" is a part of the GNU Project. For opponents of the term GNU/Linux, it's perfectly fine to continue denying GNU any credit for the operating system and associating the system exclusively with Linus Torvalds and his political views (which exist and can be understood despite his insistence that he doesn't want software to have a political component).
The FSF distinguish between "GNU Linux" (a Linux which is a part of the GNU project, like "GNU Emacs") and "GNU/Linux" (or, if you prefer, "GNU+Linux"). It's a very subtle difference, typographically speaking. But since there is no such thing as a Linux kernel which is an official part of the GNU Project, a GNU Linux, it's not very vigorously discussed.
Digital Citizen
Then... why are you posting here, if it doesn't matter? You disagree with Linus' attitude. Fine. I'm sure he doesn't care and sleeps quite well at night. He's not an activist, a mantra he repeats time and time again. He likes to write software, and jumped on the GPL way-back-when because he thought it was a good way to generate interest in his kernel and require people to give back to it. Not because he's an idealist, or a zealot, or on a crusade to make all software free.
RMS is the idealist. The fact that we have a fully open GNU/Linux system, created in part by the work of idealists and in part by "simple" engineers who just like to work on code just goes to show you that both approaches work and are relevant, regardless of how any of us may feel about RMS or Torvalds.
I really don't understand why so many people get their panties in a bunch about how Torvalds "doesn't care" about open source. Aside from the fact that I'm sure he does care (just maybe not in the way or to the extent that some people want him to), why is he obligated to care?
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
I'v seen a lot more GNU applications running on kernels other than Linux than I have seen Linux kernels running without any GNU software on top. Maybe in the embedded space there are secretly a lot of devices that run Linux that I've not seen, but I doubt it. For example, every Mac sold comes with bash, gcc, and a whole load of other GNU apps. Many GNU apps run on Windows, giving them a far larger potential footprint. I wouldn't be surprised if there are at least 2-3 times as many systems with GNU software installed than there are with Linux on them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Actually you don't have to write your DRM schemes into the kernel. You could simply write a module that loads up a dynamic library which contains whatever functions you need. This library is seperate and can be distributed under a different license.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
"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
He's talking about the Linux community not Linus himself. Linus may have been joking when he made his well known "world domination" quote, but it is a pretty good description of what seems to be one of the main driving forces inside the Linux community. To put it crudely: The FSF is about political excellence, BSD is about technical excellence, Linux is about being big. And the Linux community seems to have it right as political excellence and technical excellence are easy once you dominate the os scene.
Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
For example, right now we have say WinXP and C# .net whatever. So as an individual or a small company, i could write a .net app in C#.
Now on WinVista+1 with "Trusted computing" i decided to try the same thing, but find there is no Visual Studio 2010 becuase for that to even function, it would need to compile signed binaries, thus enabling joe sixpack to write a DeCSS program.
Three alternatives under trusted computing:
- Visual Studio 2010 uploads your source to your registered developer account at compile.microsoft.com and you get your binaries back
- WinVista+1 API is phenominally restrictive and only allows you to build high level Apps with only high level I/O controlled exclusively by MS approved DLLs (so you can't fopen("thing.xls") but you can getCell("thing.xls", "sheet1", G3)
- There is a special "WinVista+1 Developer Edition" registered and strictly controlled by microsoft like the XBox XDK is.(maybe with a less restricted WV+1 Developer Pro Edition that only runs on $10000 MS hardware)
Personally I can't wait for MS/Intel to implement Trusted Computing. Then we just sit back and watch their grassroots developer base dwindle (developers,developers, developers; marginalised,marginalised,marginalised)Then the OSS community just go about their regular business using open systems, totally unnaffected by TC. Because I think it's impossible to enforce Trusted Computing as mandatory; i dont see that threat coming to fruition. If they even attempt to put it in to action the resulting chaos would destroy the IT industry in America.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
If the "or other" clause was included, somebody could make copy and say that their changes are GPL3 only. If their changes were popular enough (ie if they were from the core developers) they would effectively change Linux to GPL3, since the only GPL2 code would be useless outdated stuff that does not interoperate.
In fact this is exactly the same as why BSD code can be "stolen" by a company, despite claims to the contrary by many posters here. Anybody who thinks the GPL3 is dangerous should have to agree that BSD is even more dangerous.
What about programs embedded in ROM or other write-once physical devices? What if the program's compiled to hardware and fabricated as a chip? Are those uses forbidden by GPLv3?
-- Jamie
They say life is like a marathon, not a sprint. Richard Stallman has his eyes on the horizon and his train is bound for glory. To those who've dissed RMS, I say: you've had your day. You've called RMS an irrelevant old hippie and a crazed zealot. But take a look at the big picture. The Linux kernel isn't everything. It's an interchangeable part of something bigger. Principles are enduring, and Stallman's license is based on enduring principles. Richard, here's to you, for standing firm.
if we didn't have the GNU license around, linux would have just been released under a different one. I think we would probably be at the same point.
web services built on OSS
First of all kills that ambiguous/missleading "built on OSS" junk. The GPL only applies to code where the copyright holder has chosen to place it under the GPL and to drivatives of that code (which as per copyright law is also protected under that original copyright). The GPl does not apply to some thing simply built/running on top of Linux or other OSS platform.
So lets trim that quote to:
web services
They were considering a clause that webservices software licensed under the GPL would have to make the source code available, but thus far they have NOT included any such clause.
Do employees get the source code for their payroll system if it runs on Linux?
Again, get rid of that misleading "runs on Linux" junk. The GPL only applies to sofware that was placed under the GPL by the copyright holder. It does not apply to software "running on Linux".
So lets trim that quote to:
Do employees get the source code for their payroll system
Well the GPL only applies if you redistribute the software, and it need only apply to those people to whom you directly GIVE a copy of that program.
So you only need to make the payroll source available to employees if you are actually giving those employees a copy of the payroll program.
So the answer to both of your questions is no.
You missunderstood the GPL/GPL3, and your sneering subject line about crusaders is unfounded.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Linux was originaly released under a non-comercial license...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Indeed, Microsoft took the same road with Windows. But of course they are not primarily interested in technical and political excellence.
Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
Do remember that some substantial number of copyrights in the kernel are held by Caldera (now tSCOg). Well, perhaps not substantial...I haven't counted. They were certainly thought important at one time.
Somehow I doubt that tSCOg would be amenable to a license modification...esp. if IBM wanted it. (And IBM holds a bunch of other copyrights...though I don't know if those are on the kernel. They may just be on file systems and utilities.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Because I disagree with people who think that it does matter? Doh.
What Linus says doesn't matter, but if people misjudge what doesn't matter for what does, then that kind of misjudgement DOES matter.
I mean, if what Linus says really matters, why not publish more ESR, RMS, Theo, and so on? Why single out Linus? Just because he gave interview to Forbes? Big woop-de-doo, if you ask me.
I mean, what Linus says does matter to an extent. But it's nothing worth bellyaching over. Linus is a good guy, but good guys say and do silly things all the fucking time. So just because Linus is nice doesn't mean we have to go crazy over what he says or does. In particular, it makes no sense to start a big polemic over his words.
Please read the first paragraph of my first post, particularly the part where I say that Linux kernel licensing isn't under Torvalds' exclusive control and hasn't been for most of that kernels existence.
Digital Citizen
Interesting how Microsoft may "call [Microsoft Windows XP SP2] what they want" yet you believe that respecting the name Stallman gave GNU requires a license clause demanding something, thus you choose to ask "Where exactly does the GPL (or anything else in the business or software world) require you to give credit to someone via the naming of a product?".
How about that this is not a matter of legality, but a matter of respect. One ought to call things by their proper names: the kernel Linus Torvalds started is called "Linux", the operating system Microsoft distributes is called "Microsoft Windows", and the operating system Richard Stallman started is called "GNU". The union of the GNU OS with the Linux kernel is reasonably called "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux" so that both projects get a share of the credit. As more variants of GNU appear which feature different kernels or kernel replacements (I know of 3 so far), it is respectful and technically useful to identify them by their proper names as well.
Digital Citizen
If Tivo is using GPLv2 code in their box, then are they not obligated to release the source? If so, there is no loophole, since "the industry" will allow us to vote with our feet: Someone will take that code and release a box that does what Tivo does and allows users to modify the OS.
It may take time, and early adopters or the ignorant may later regret their initial purchases, but that's how the market goes.
As awareness of these issues - FLOSS; open, unencumbered, standardized data formats; user sovereignty; my machine is my machine; vendor hegemonies; etc. - grows, more and more consumers will vote with their feet and stop buying the closed boxes.
GPLv3 may be solving a temporary problem, one that will eventually disappear.
Note: I haven't made up my mind about the GPLv3 yet, I'm still mulling....
I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.
Maybe not, but I'm a bit confused now by how you mean to say it "doesn't matter".
Doesn't matter in the sense that we shouldn't care what he says because he doesn't have good ideas? I don't really think that's true.
Doesn't matter in the sense that his opinion in this case won't affect anything? It's true that he's not in control of GPL development, but the GPL architects would be fools to at least not consider what he has to say. He *does* run one of the most high-profile GPL-licensed projects in existence.
Maybe we *should* be hearing more of what ESR, RMS, Theo de Raadt, etc. say. Though I daresay we do here quite a lot of RMS.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, regardles of whether or not what Linus says "matters" or not (however you want to look at it), he does have a valid -- if not "correct" -- viewpoint, and it never hurts to hear what other people have to think. If you're going to just blindly agree with what he says, sure, that's a bit foolish, but I don't think not posting articles about what Linus (or anyone else) says is the solution: the root problem there is that you (generic 'you', that is) are a pushover conformist zealot.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
>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.
I keep seeing things like this, and wonder where they come from.
Tivos running custom kernels are *common*. For example, there are modified kernels out there that have changed the size of disk that may be addressed.
However, modifying the kernel doesn't affect the software that runs the GUI and handles playback.
hawk