Linus Speaks Out On GPLv3

Slagged writes to mention the word that Linus Torvalds isn't a fan of the new GPL draft. News.com has the story, and someone purporting to be Linus is causing a ruckus in the Groklaw thread on the subject. From the News.com article: "Say I'm a hardware manufacturer. I decide I love some particular piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure it runs only one particular version of that software, because that's what I've validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the binary before I run it ... The GPLv3 doesn't seem to allow that, and in fact, most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow the above kind of use, which I don't think it has any business doing."

Comments

Re:GPL v3 will fail

[phantomfive]

I am one developer who will be using the GPL v3. It's fine with me if people want to use my work, but I would like a little respect in return.
Further, the entire GNU toolchain will become GPL v3, which is not insignificant. GCC likely will become GPL v3. Based on the comments I've been seeing so far, a lot of other developers feel the same way I do.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[GigsVT]

Linus's whole point is that the GPL 3 dictates technical details of projects that use it, where V2 didn't.

GPLv2 dictated technical details that affected the next user's right to modify the software. For example, you couldn't link a modified GPL program with a closed source library, since that would hamper the ability to modify the software.

The spirit of the GPL has not changed. The "political goal" is to ensure that all downsteam users that wind up using GPL software have the same rights to modify and distribute the software that earlier users had. That has not changed. It's only closing a loophole that some companies can use to take away those rights without violating the letter of the GPL.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[GigsVT]

There's no arm twisting. No one is forced to use GPLed software. No GPL software developer is forced to use GPLv3. If embedded manufacturers would like to continue using only GPLv2 software, they are free to do so.

If GPL software developers would like to prevent manufacturers from taking away the rights of users to modify and redistribute the software, they they should use GPLv3. I suspect many will. Some won't. Notably, Linux will never be GPLv3, it can't be even if Linus wanted it to be. There's too much GPLv2 only code in it.

Linus shouldn't act like something has changed. The core value of the GPL has always been that you must not restrict the rights of the people you distribute GPL software to.

It's part of the reason BSD is a fractured mess that nearly no one uses, and Linux is so huge. With GPL you aren't going to be competing against heavily forked proprietary versions that blow the open source version out of the water (see pspice/cadence if you need an example). If Linux had been under a license that allowed forks that users can't modify or redistribute, it would be no better than the BSD license.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[fossa]

The Open Source movement makes the case that source code leads to many eyes reducing bugs, stronger communities, and do other things that might be appealing to a business. Free Software on the other hand, according to Stallman and his GPL and FSF, has always been about ensuring the four freedoms for the software end user. If you or Linus are not interested in these four freedoms, political or philosophical as they may be, then you should not license your software under the GPL "version 2 or any later version". Read up on it; make your choice. But don't complain when the FSF attempts to modify their license to maintain these freedoms, for the FSF has never claimed to do otherwise.

Re:Of Course That's the Point

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Linus's whole point is that the GPL 3 dictates technical details of projects that use it, where V2 didn't.

Ahem. GPLv2 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Re:You are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.

Yes, but currently Free Software authors are subsidising the development of platforms that takes their Free code and locks it up so that it can't be modified or replaced. A lot of Free Software authors don't like this because it defeats the whole point of Free Software. That is the problem that it solves.