Torvalds Critiques of GPLv3 and FSF Refuted

j00bar writes "After Linus Torvalds' impassioned critiques of the second draft of GPLv3 and the community process the FSF has organized, Newsforge's Bruce Byfield discovered in conversations with the members of the GPLv3 committees that the committee members disagree; they believe not only has the FSF been responsive to the committees' feedback but also that the second draft includes some modifications in response to Torvalds' earlier criticisms." NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

Comments

I can see both sides

[Lord Kano]

The FSF intends to use the GPL as a means to prevent people from doing certain "bad" things with free software. I get that and I support the idea. Linus seems to have chosen the GPL for practical reasons. He didn't want the code that he and so many others poured their hearts and souls into to be stolen and closed like the Cedega situation.

I suspect that Linus just wants to make his software while the FSF wants to change the world.

LK

Re:I can see both sides

[Anonymous Coward]

"He didn't want the code that he and so many others poured their hearts and souls into to be stolen and closed like the Cedega situation."

The thing is, changes in the GPL (mainly those dealing with DRM) are absolutely necessary if you don't want code to be "stolen and closed." It's not some theoretical, idealistic thing. It's an extremely practical consideration.

If you write a program and release it under the GPL, and if it's permissible to make derivative versions that will no longer run when modified (due to DRM in hardware), then I can take and build upon your code and never give the improvements back. You may be able to see the source, but you can't use my changes because your future alterations will no longer execute on the hardware you own. I can also sell hardware including your code, and even though the GPL intends that my customers should thus have the right to modify the code -- they can't.

Allowing commingling of DRM and GPLed code is a huge loophole. It essentially allows someone to make a proprietary branch of your code. From then on, you can still look, but you can't touch.

As for patents, that's another very similar situation. By claiming patents on my modifications to your GPLed code, I can make my own proprietary branch of your code. You can no longer build upon my changes, because to do so would be a patent infringement... but I can freely take yours.

Re:I can see both sides

[dbIII]

The FSF intends to use the GPL as a means to prevent people from doing certain "bad" things with free software

There are two things to think of that are important about this - first,it will also stop things that are not "bad" by the FSF definition, second - the FSF didn't write the software and does not own the copyright on it or have any obligation owed to them by the authors - attempted name changes or not.

It is up to the FSF to convince the authors that any new licences are a good idea - the implication that the authors haver to do what the FSF says at all - especially when it is only a draft version of the new licence - is an odd way of looking at things. Effectively to get linux th use a different licence the FSF has to convince Linus, nearly every other kernel developer and all the groups that package distributions that it is a good idea, and even since a superficial look at the new draft licence turns up some problems there is more work to be done. Going out of your way to hurt companies that already comply with the GPL and add to the devlopment of free (as in look it up in the dictionary not make up your own meanings) software but have signed binaries on their hardware may be seen as "collatoral damage" by the thoughtless - but surely the FSF and other contributors can do better than that?

Re:I can see both sides

[DrJimbo]

Lord Kano said:

I suspect that Linus just wants to make his software while the FSF wants to change the world.

The FSF wants to change the world so that people like Linus will continue to be free to create and modify their free and open source software.

Without the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about, we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers. Worse, those computers could be running the GPLv2 software we wrote even though we have lost all of our rights to further modify it and we've lost the right to even choose what software we run on our own computers.

Re:I can see both sides

[init100]

You may be able to see the source, but you can't use my changes because your future alterations will no longer execute on the hardware you own.

The way Linus sees it is from the "developer" viewpoint. The code is still free from this viewpoint, since all modifications are published. You can modify it and run it on a DRM-free machine. The FSF rather thinks of the "end users" viewpoint, where modifying the code and running the modified code on the same machine is paramount.

For myself, I understand Linus view, but I tend to go along with the FSF view. Being unable to modify free software on a hardware device and run it on the same device violates the spirit of free software. The vendor could build upon the mountain of free code, saving a lot of money in the process (i.e. not reinventing the wheel), but does not grant any of these freedoms to their customers.

So to sum it up, I'd say they can write their own OS, or license a commercial one, if they don't want to give their customers the same freedoms they have.

Re:I can see both sides

[Znork]

"It is up to the FSF to convince the authors that any new licences are a good idea"

Partly. Most programs under the GPL retain the GPL v.2 or later options, meaning redistributors and authors of derivative works can update the license to the newer version at their discretion. This is by design, so that the FSF can update the GPL, should loopholes appear or technology change the situation and allow code to be updated to more recent versions, _even when authors are out of touch or dead or otherwise_.

The Linux kernel version of the GPL, however, does not retain that clause, rendering it stuck permanently in v2 land; and as the kernel, unlike FSF driven projects, doesnt require copyright reassignment, it would be more or less impossible to accomplish a change.

Which means that a) the linux kernel is vulnerable to changes in law and technology that may render the v2 GPL ineffective and b) what Torvalds thinks is really has little bearing on the issue.

"look at the new draft licence turns up some problems"

I see no problems. The new version closes several holes; to get affected by them you'd have to have been willfully abusing those loopholes, violating the intent and spirit of the GPL. It's not as if the FSF's views are a well kept secret, so any due diligence would have made it obvious that such loopholes would be closed down.

Re:I can see both sides

[temcat]

I'm afraid that soon DRM will be implemented everywhere at a low level so you'll have to completely refrain from buying any devices that can run user code, because neither of them will let you run what you choose.

Re:I can see both sides

[Pecisk]

So you think licence is right way to fight it? That GPLv3 will push hardware manifacturers, RIAA, MPAA and rest of parasyte crowd say "ohhh, our bad, let's move back to old, good way of earning money?"

Sorry, but in reality, it requires political fight, because our opponents have took it to political level - they don't want to market to deside that DRM is bad, they want law that protects DRM. They don't want to market to deside how much value is in code or product, no, for that they go to politics and buy new, shiny patent law.

Change THAT system. Licence won't help us. Change customer's attitude. Organise boycots. Don't buy Macs. Don't buy ATI or Nvidia video cards. Seriously. Vote with your wallet. Vote with your attitude. Inform rest of the crowd.

Stallman could have listen to Linus and allowed clearly several uses of DRM with GPLv3 licence. I think everyone would be happy. Yep, maybe it would be a little bit more difficult to understand, but anyway...

I am not against Stallman, or for Linus. Both they have some right points and some false. Linus is a little bit flamer - but he has been always, for example, he trashed GNOME, which I use - but at least he some right to do it. And at least he give some serious points from developer's side.

And yes, Stallman rocks as ethical leader or politican, because he sees bigger picture. What he needs is to be more constructive and learn new ways to achieve his goals.

Re:I can see both sides

[quintesse]

Sure, and how many XBoxes can you buy that run Linux? The fact that somebody _can_, at some time, hack around the DRM and install Linux does not mean that it is a viable alternative. We are lucky that we can actually watch DVDs on Linux, not because some guy figured out how to decode the data but the fact that his work isn't considered illegal (yet) in a lot of places. But still, most distros don't include the necessary code just to be on the safe side. Thing is that I don't think that Linux will be a popular and viable OS in the future if people have to _knowingly_ break the law just to make it do the most basic of things: run it.

Re:I can see both sides

[spuzzzzzzz]

Here's the thing about the GPLv3. It's taking away more freedom from both the developer and the user. It will prevent the developer from developing for whatever hardware he wants

Please explain to me how the existence of the GPLv3 will prevent developers from licensing their software under the GPLv2.

Re:I can see both sides

[replicant108]

He didn't want the code that he and so many others poured their hearts and souls into to be stolen and closed like the Cedega situation.

And that is exactly why the GPL is being updated.

Make no mistake - RMS may be driven by ethics, but the GPL is a practical solution to a practical problem.

Re:I can see both sides

[Rutulian]

The way Linus sees it is from the "developer" viewpoint. The code is still free from this viewpoint, since all modifications are published. You can modify it and run it on a DRM-free machine.

That's the short-sightedness of Linus' argument (the same short-sightedness that let him get trapped by the Bitkeeper fiasco). There are DRM-free machines now, but that doesn't mean there will be in the future. If the media companies have their way, every desktop computer will have a TPM chip in it, and if you want to view things like HD-content, it has to be enabled and running. So a company can take a project, like say mplayer, make a version that plays their video format, decrypting the stream via the TPM hardware, and then sign the binary and then sell it. Congratulations, a company has just saved themselves a couple of years of development time to make a video player to help sell their video files, and you can't modify it at all. If you modify it, it reverts to just plain old mplayer without the ability to use the code that was added. That defeats the purpose of the GPL. Linus really needs to wake up here. Yes, proprietary software has a right to exist, but pretending a company won't take advantage of free software to reduce their development costs (without giving anything back, if they can) is stupid. The GPL allows commercial use of free software as long as you give a fair share back to the community. It is not some fiendish scheme to force all software to be free as some people would say. The GPL as it is has worked fine for the last decade, but now it needs to change or it will no longer serve its purpose.

Re:I can see both sides

[Rutulian]

But the vendor must still publish the source of any changes he makes to the code. So the vendor is giving back.

No, it's not. The device driver code for an obscure chip on, say, a wireless router is completely useless if I can't run the code on said hardware. Think about the Linksys WRT54G. It was just running a linux kernel modified to run on the router with a set of minimal networking utilities. When the source was released, people were able to add all sorts of stuff: better firewalls, servers, ssh utilities, more efficient and capable routing.... They wouldn't have been able to do any of this stuff if Linksys had tossed in a TPM chip and made it so only their signed modified linux would run. The changes they made were also useless without the hardware (yay, so now we know how to run linux on a Linksys router, to bad we can't actually do it).

So, yes, a consumer could just go buy a different wireless router, but that's not the point. The point is that Linksys would have been using GPL'd software to reduce their development costs without giving a useful share back to the community. Developers who don't mind that sort of thing use the BSD license. Developers who do use the GPL. For the GPL to continue to be relevant, it has to be modified to close loopholes that didn't exist 10 years ago.

Re:I can see both sides

[dwandy]

Perhaps what you see as short-sightedness is actually an even longer sightedness. Perhaps, Linus looking into his crystal ball, sees a future where a subset of freedom loving consumers are forced to become open (non-DRMed) hardware developers and compete with all the closed (via DRM) consumer electronics hardware

I've looked into this. and yes I think that maybe one day open hardware is going to exist. but not in any kind of near to mid term. the problem is money. A CPU fab costs intel in the billions to make. Open source software can be run on a used sub-$100 desktop computer.

In the mean time, if orgs like RIAA, MPAA, WIPO et al have their way, all hardware is going to require some kind of TPM.

If I had to place my life's savings on which one will happen first (freedom hardware, or all intel/amd systems including some form of hardware TPM, I'd place my money on the TPM.

Worse than that, sure if it exists, Windows will implement it. Will linux? doesn't have to, and I suspect it won't. But that won't stop the Intellectual Monopoly holders from making it law ... effectively making non-TPM compliant versions of Linux illegal.

this is not the boogieman.
This is the capitalist, and I for one do not welcome the new capitalist overlord.

Re:I can see both sides

[jrobinson5]

Oh really?

Yes, there are lots of ways to do it that are illegal, but you state the only way an Xbox can run Linux is if you break the law. This is just FUD.

Re:I can see both sides

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Is it legal (or even possible yet) to run Linux on an xbox360? I ask since the security on the latter console appears more "robust" than the first xbox, and consequently, is surely more likely to involve a DCMA violation?

Isn't Linux beside the point here?

[JanneM]

I'm sure lots of people will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Linux kernel - and thus Torvald's views - rather unimportant here?

The entire kernel, and all contributions from hundreds or thousands of people, are explicitly licensed as GPL version 2. Even if the kernel people were rabidly enthusiastic about GPL v3, they'd have a very, very difficult time changing the license in any case; as a practical matter it'd probably be impossible. So what Torvalds, in the guise of kernel maintainer, thiks of the license is not really relevant since the licence, no matter what it looks like, would never be used by the kernel in any case.

Torvalds views as an OSS developer are of course relevant - but as one voice among the hundreds of other leading developers in various projects. And as has been pointed out, if he really wanted to be constructive he'd have joined in the debate itself, rather than just sniping at it via the media.

Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here?

[LLuthor]

Nope.

I still own copyright on the little pieces of the kernel that I wrote.
The only rights anyone else has are those granted by the GPL 2.

Changing the kernel license is impossible. Many contributions have been made by people who are now unreachable, dead, or simply disagree with a license change.

Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here?

[TheRaven64]

As understand the GPL license, even the copyright owner can not change the license.

Not quite true. The GPL does not (and cannot) reduce the rights of the copyright owner. The only thing that can do that is assignment of the copyright to another entity.

The GPL can not be unilaterally revoked. This means that code, once licensed under the GPL, remains under the GPL. The copyright owner is still free to release it under other licenses, however. If they do, then users of the code may have the choice as to which license they accept. An example of this is MySQL; you may either use the GPL (and abide by its conditions) or buy a proprietary license with fewer constraints.

Re:Sure to happen

[CRCulver]

One indeed has to wonder what's going on with Torvalds. It's one thing to feel that Stallman is a kook and the Free Software ideal is often overly zealous. I admire Stallman and his movement, but I acknowledge that many people consider it all an embrassment. However, it's another thing entirely to actively cheer on the introduction of DRM, which Torvalds has been doing now for a couple of years. Doesn't Linus realize that with strict hardware controls enforcing what may and may not be run, one's freedom to tinker may disappear? You'd think that someone who invented an operating system "just for fun" would want other people to be able to experience the magic of doing whatever they likes with their computer.

Linus

[Enderandrew]

I am very grateful for the contributions Linus has made to the world. But he can be an ass from time to time.

And when he said that nothing much changed between the second and third drafts, he was not only being flippant, but ignorant. Many of the changes were in direct response to criticisms he made.

GPLv3 will happen regardless of whether or not it is accepted for the Linux kernel. I'm not sure they need to make Linus happy. I think the GPL crew needs to make the license best suit their needs.

Regardless, I don't think Linus will back down and accept it any time in the future. He has been very clear that the kernel is to be licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv2 exclusively.

Re:Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll go you one further, and I hope Linus gets to read this. His behavior regarding this new draft is starting to cost him significant respect, and he's also hurting both the free software camp, and his own open source group, while providing Rovian press material for some real class A crooks. Linus is a great developer, but he needs to show a little moderation, and a little more respect for Richard Stallman. Call him what you will, but Stallman's vision regarding the GPL to this point has been beyond genius. And if it was not for Stallman's vision and tenacious courage (with Eben Moglen's help) in the face of just about every kind of demeaning criticsm and ploy one could imagine, Linus would still be in Finland, himself eating herring every day and trying to get Windows to stop crashing.

Stallman's license has stymied a large nest of very nasty people for 20 years, people who would steal Linus blind if it weren't for Stallman and his vision. And given Stallman's record, dedication, and results, if he sees issues with patents and DRM, if I were Linus, I'd listen first, and then ask respectful questions via professional channels.

Based on the past 20 years, and the benefits that will accrue to all of us due to his work, Richard Stallman is deserving of a Nobel prize nomination. Linus is just a developer and project manager, and he should show Stallman commensurate respect.

jwwjr

Re:Linus

[Helldesk Hound]

> Regardless, I don't think Linus will back down and accept it any time in
> the future. He has been very clear that the kernel is to be licensed under
> GPLv2 and GPLv2 exclusively.

However, if the compiler that they use to compile the binary versions of the Kernel is licenced under the GPL v3, then wouldn't the Kernel also need to be licenced under the GPL v3?

Surely GNU/Linux is an ecosystem, and the Kernel is but one part of that ecosystem that would not be able to function without all the rest of the system - at least sufficient to produce an interactive system that people would be able to use.

Re:Linus

[houghi]

GPLv3 will happen regardless of whether or not it is accepted for the Linux kernel.

Sure it will happen. You could also write a GPLv4 or any other license. On my SUSE there are some 20+ different licences. The question is not wether or not you can make a new license, but wether or not people will start using it.

I could make a "houghi license" and I am sure nobody will use it, not even me. Now if nobody is going to use it, why make it?

Re:Linus

[Kaktrot]

I don't think anything would happen, really. The pieces that are in the Linux kernel would still be licensed under the GPLv2. They have the option of giving the code away under v3, but that doesn't change the exact copy that is already in use in the kernel.

Article is one-sided

[vdboor]

I've read TFA, but noticed most arguments against Linus' option are made by members of the Open Source / Free Software communities. It would be more interesting to hear the feedback from commercial party's who're involved with Linux as well (e.g. Novell, HP, Oracle, Trolltech). This doesn't exactly put any weight under the arguments of the article.

I believe Linus is more open towards commercial development then most FLOSS community members are. This makes it understandable why he is so against enforcing freedom through everyones throats. Linus has always been the more practical type.

Re:Article is one-sided

[DrJimbo]

vdboor said:

I believe Linus is more open towards commercial development then most FLOSS community members are. This makes it understandable why he is so against enforcing freedom through everyones throats. Linus has always been the more practical type.

I've heard over and over again that Linus is taking the practical and/or pragmatic side of this debate. Poppycock! He is not being practical, he is being very short sighted in a way that could come back and bite all of us in the hat someday.

The DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about are there to help ensure that FOSS developers like Linus will not be locked out from developing software on future generations of computers.

Furthermore, if we are locked out from developing FOSS on those computers, we can take some comfort in the fact that it will be illegal to run GPLv3 code on them.

Re:Article is one-sided

[Ohreally_factor]

This is the second time you've proposed that without the GPLv3, OSS developers will be locked out from developing a whole generations of computers. Could you please explain this scenario for me? Is there going to be a conspiracy of hardware makers that are going to lock out OSS development?

Re:Article is one-sided

[jimicus]

Doesn't need to be.

All Trusted Computing provides is a means to verify remotely what software is running on a given system. Cisco have already developed routers which can be set up to only route traffic from something running "approved" software.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2003/11/19/BUGP6351V31.DTL

If they only way for your software to be "approved" is that it's the version your vendor shipped & signed, then it matters not whether or not you can modify what they shipped and install it yourself - as soon as you do that, the router will drop any packets from your PC and internet access will stop working.

Maybe that's an extreme example - I can't see many ISPs cutting off most of their customers overnight. But I can see banks requiring a "trusted" setup for online banking, government departments requiring a "trusted" setup for interaction (and if the UK is anything to go by, the online systems will sooner or later replace the existing ones so you can't just post them your tax forms). Add this all up and if you think running Linux on a desktop can be awkward and painful now, imagine what it would be like in that vision of the future.

Re:Article is one-sided

[g2devi]

> He is not being practical, he is being very short sighted in a way that could come back and bite all of us in the hat someday.

While I agree that it is short sighted, I think it's short sighted for different reasons.

I don't think that GPL3 proponents in the Linux development community have any problem with the Linux kernel being licensed under GPL 2. The problem is that it's GPL 2 only, so it can never be changed in the future by future maintainers of Linux without a complete rewrite. If there's a serious problem with the GPL 2 or the rest of the world moves to GPL 3 and the Linux kernel can no longer share code with the rest of the world, Linux is SOL. Like it or not, Linux is now bigger than Linus.

There is a simple solution that would immediately silence the debate. If individual files in the Linux kernel could be tagged as "GPL 2 or later" and have that license maintained (the same way the license of BSD files in the kernel are maintained), the Linux kernel would be GPL2, however, it would be possible to gradually move Linux completely to the "GPL 2 or later" as various portions of the Linux kernel get rewritten. People who currently want their modules to remain "GPL 2 only" could do so. People who wanted their modules to be "GPL 2 or later" could do so.

If after 10 years, Linux is still 99% "GPL 2 only", the issue is pretty much dead. Developers want the GPL 2 only license and Linus is currently just defending the obvious. If however, 99% of the kernel is "GPL 2 or later" then Linus's current decision to have the kernel be "GPL2 only" is not with the Linux community.

In either case, the conflict is artificial.

Re:Article is one-sided

[Kobayashi Maru]

This is the second time you've proposed that without the GPLv3, OSS developers will be locked out from developing a whole generations of computers. Could you please explain this scenario for me? Is there going to be a conspiracy of hardware makers that are going to lock out OSS development?

I imagine it means we could find ourselves in a situation where the Playstation 4 or XBOX 3 actually runs Linux. But while the code is "open," licensed under the GPLv2, all the cryptographic nonsense and DRM closes it back down again. Granted we'll have the source to look for attack vectors, but until a weakness is found, we'll still have to go to Microsoft or Sony for a "developer license." Which really just means paying large sums of money so they will use their private keys to generate a "valid" crypotgraphic signature for your binary.

Now because these are game systems, they'll attract the attention of the best hackers in the world. Having the source code, even GPLv2, would be a tremendous boost to the modding scene. Imagine instead that this is your toaster, or your Buick, or your no-name cell phone -- something only you and a small number of other people are interested in. Because the source is available under the GPLv2, you can find the exact line that is creating the bug you want to fix, but because none of you know how to hack the encryption checking, you're powerless to do anything about it.

This is, I think, what the GPLv3 is trying to prevent.

GNU project non-existent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the GNU utilities you use every day, the compiler, and many other things the GNU project started were completely ignored in your post.

Re:GNU project non-existent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere did I say "all" utilities. The "GNU utilities" refers to things such as the entire coreutils package.

My point doesn't need all utilities to be written by the FSF, of course. The parent merely implied that the FSF didn't do *any* coding toward his software freedom in ignorance. My pointing of *some* contradicts a statement that there were none at all.

If you missed these connections, I apologize and stress that I will point out the doubly (and more) obvious in future posts. I should have known better than to point out the singly obvious when there are so many ways to miss the obvious!

Re:GNU project non-existent?

[Richard_at_work]

I can replace all the GNU utilities in a Linux system with functionally similair tools from other projects - however, the GNU kernel is practically unusable. Its simply a matter of convenience that the GNU tools are used, but I guess that should be acknowledged as well.

Re:GNU project non-existent?

[Ohreally_factor]

If Linux was never started then the HURD would certainly be much better by now.

The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not.
The Dead Collector: He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.

Re:GNU project non-existent?

[Scarblac]

Show it. Show us a completely usable system, running a Linux kernel and no GNU stuff. I don't think it can be done.

On the other hand, Debian with a BSD kernel and Debian with a Hurd kernel are both available.

Re:GNU project non-existent?

[tgcid]

Afaik, the BSDs largely have their own set of utilies, so it should be possible to run the Linux kernel + BSD programs. The greatest (and hardest to replace) contribution of the GNU programs is GCC. Currently, Theo da Raadt (of OpenBSD) has proposed writing a faster (in compile-time not run-time), more secure/strict compiler.

Re:GNU project non-existent?

[labratuk]

Good luck replacing gcc. Even the BSDs use gcc.

And no, icc cannot reliably compile a runnable kernel.

Re:GNU project non-existent?

[unix_core]

"Theo da Raadt (of OpenBSD) has proposed writing a faster (in compile-time not run-time), more secure/strict compiler."

Well, I've proposed releasing Windows Vista under the GPL.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[Mornelithe]

Yes, yes. Quite right. Hardly anybody uses gcc, or glibc, or gdb, or emacs, or bash, or...

Damn those FSF nuts for never writing any software that's good enough for use. After all, everyone knows that all you need is a bare kernel to get things done.

The answer...

[dosius]

The answer if you can't handle Linux being bound to GPL2 when the rest of the world goes GPL3, is to drop Linux for a GPL3-compatible system. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but maybe this will cause a lot of movement from Linux, not to Hurd - Hurd is still shit - but to FreeBSD, which is the next best thing to Linux and the license ought to be compatible with any version of the GPL.

And besides. In this "GPL vs Proprietary! White vs Black!" debate that's been going on past 15-aught years, I've sided with NetBSD.

-uso.

Who cares what Linus thinks about the GPLv3?

[Korgan]

Maybe I'm being ignorant here, but if anyone actually reads the version of the GPL that is used by and distributed with the Linux kernel, it does not allow you to use a later version. The Linux kernel is, and always will be, GPLv2. That was a conscious decision by Linus and the other developers.

Because of that, who really cares what Linus has to say about the GPLv3? He's made it pretty clear he doesn't like it, but the only work that he's producing that anyone cares about is Linux. And the Linux kernel will never be anything other than GPLv2. Even if they /WANTED/ to change it, too many people that have contributed in the past under the GPLv2 license are either dead or simply not accessible to get their permission to change to the newer license. The logistics of keeping track of which part is GPLv2 and which might become GPLv3 just makes it simply "too hard."

Personally, I don't give a damn if Linus likes GPLv3 or not. Its not about Linus, its about everyone in the Free software community as a whole. Individuals can go shoot their feet off instead of their mouth. Its about whats best for the majority, not just Linux or just Gnome or just GCC or just whatever...
[/rant]

Re:The GPL needs to go

[Punboy]

Ok, well since you know nothing about Linux (even though you claim to have worked with it), I'll let you in on a few secrets.

Ext2 is ancient. Don't use it. Instead use a journalled filesystem such as Ext3 and ReiserFS, the latter being my favorite for production environment. Both ext2 and ext3 filesystems can be easily defragged with e2defrag. Although, Ext3 and ReiserFS both have technologies to prevent major defragmentation.

Token ring? Please. Nobody really makes good tokenring equipment anymore (if they ever did in the first place), and nobody cares to. Use ethernet, its cheaper, faster, more reliable, and has far more products available. But in any case, Linux has supported tokenring for a very long time. Don't believe me? Google it.

As far as your lawyers' analysis of the GPL, they are completely wrong. You don't have to release any sourcecode that's compiled with GCC just because GCC is GPL'd. Neither do you have to release any modifications you make to the linux kernel. This is the wonder of the GPL version 2. If you want to sell your modifications, fine. Do so. Sell it, distribute it for free, whatever. Just cite the source. But, only the modifications. If you are going to release the modifications already builtin, you have to provide the original source prior to modification. Simple.

You totally made up most of your argument, you've probably never worked in the IT field a day in your life, at least not with Linux. Stop acting like you're an engineer/lawyer/whatever. You are not.

Parent blatently incorrect

[Workaphobia]

At first I thought it odd that a well written (that is, grammatically correct), lengthy post should be modded -1 Troll, but by the time I finished reading your post it became clear that you are either grossly misinformed or deliberately spreading lies about the license. I believe it is the latter, since I doubt that any commercial legal department could interpret the GPL so poorly, when most slashdot readers are aware of these simple facts:

A: You are *NOT* under any obligation whatsoever to release your source code to anyone else so long as you do not distribute your modified binaries. If you do distribute your binaries, the GPL aims to make certain that the recipient also has access to the source code corresponding to it.

B: Programs compiled under GCC are not GPL'd. In fact, the output of any GPL program is never automatically covered by the GPL unless a significant portion of the output originated from said program. Also, the gcc libraries are LGPL'd, not GPL'd, so this concern doesn't even apply.

But you already knew that, didn't you.

Re:Translation of Torvalds' attack

[init100]

remember who it is that insists on a name change another persons project to "advertise" the gnu project

Are you referring to the term GNU/Linux? In this case, you are wrong. Stallman does not insist on Linus to change the name of Linux, he just insists on using the term GNU/Linux when referring to a working (GNU/)Linux system, which contains a lot more than the Linux kernel. I understand his argument, and in principle I agree, but using the term GNU/Linux in practice is unduly complex.

MOD PARENT UP

[cryptoluddite]

The problem I have with Linux re: GPL 3 is that he's just being ignorant. He has some beef about people having to give out their own personal private keys that has been shot down by any number of people that actually know what they are talking about legally (PJ, Eben, etc). Just casually reading the license and Linus' comments, he just isn't making any sense.

My best bet is that Linus doesn't actually want to understand the GPL v3. Linux is eminently practical, and the practical thing to do to increase Linux usage, fix bugs, and add new features is to make Linux corporate friendly. A *lot* of contributions come from the likes of IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell, and other companies. I bet the prospect of these companies pulling out their support is a major consideration (whether intentional or not).

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[Quadraginta]

Well, yes, good point. A very good point.

But...I dunno. Until Linux came along, these things seemed a bit on the fringe to me, except for Emacs, which predates the FSF anyway. I installed GCC and GDB once or twice in the early 90s, but it never did as good a job as the compiler and debugger you always got along with your proprietary Unix, which you got along with your workstation. (The $1000 license fee being peanuts compared to the $40,000 hardware anyway.)

So at least in my experience -- and I admit I was a scientific programmer, a user, and not a systems programmer or applications developer -- the GNU tools were pretty much just curiosities until Linux made it possible to run Unix on your PC. Now that was a Great Thing. All the elegance, stability, security and network-savviness of the work computer now available at home. Very nice. And the GNU tools made that possible, yes. But the free kernel was the keystone to that arch, I think. Linux could have squeaked by with few less GNU tools (albeit not without GCC), but I think all the GNU tools would have remained curiosities without the free kernel. As soon as a great free Unix existed, a lot of people jumped in to add what was still missing, like a fancy desktop instead of plain old X and fvwm, drivers, or package managers instead of a giant tarball and a 64kb README. But would people have ever jumped in to create the kernel, knowing the various GNU system applications already existed? Well, they didn't -- not until Linus. Maybe it had to wait until hardware prices came down, so if it hadn't been Linus it would've been someone else anyway. But maybe it's also harder for people to get excited when they see a bunch of pieces lying around, so that if maybe you built the central piece you could assemble everything into a coherent whole. Maybe it's easier to get excited when you can see a working model, even if it's crude and belches smoke everywhere, and could use some serious extra tinkering to work better. It's from that point of view that I think Linux has inspired and will inspire more people to do OSS work, or use it, than GNU. Maybe Linus is Shakespeare stealing Roger Bacon's plays -- but it's nevertheless Shakespeare who gets remembered in the history books.

Also, what I recall (vaguely) is that between '85 and '95 or so, the GNU kernel was always coming along Real Soon Now, but seemed stuck because they wanted to Get It Right. Let's just pass lightly over the gcc/egcs wierdness, which is maybe harder to understand than the Pope's nuanced position on masturbation among priests. I think substantial dithering got short-circuited by Linus, and by the people fired up about Linux,

Now, I'm not saying RMS or the FSF's work isn't highly valuable. The value of their work isn't what I'm talking about at all. What I'm saying is that I think the future belongs more to people like Linus -- that they will have more lasting influence -- because, as the OP said, they seems more focussed on getting stuff out the door, and the FSF (and RMS in particular) seem more focussed on making sure it's the right stuff, built with the right moral philosophy, isn't going to exploit the masses or give you karma, et cetera. In all my working experience, folks who spend substantial amounts of energy on the aesthetics of their product rather than on its bare ugly function get chewed up by the real world sooner or later. Jobs and NeXT, Betamax vs. VHS, Multics, DEC's Alpha chip -- tragedies like that come to mind. The perfect is often the enemy of the good, as they say.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[Ohreally_factor]

I don't think it's so much that Linus eschews changing the world. I think that he has an eminently more practical way of doing it. For one thing, he's not hung up on converting people through either religious fervor or through convincing them his way is best (if there's a difference). As he's said, he's not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. Instead, he shows by example how it's supposed to work, and why open source development is a better way of software development, whatever your motives are. I think it's great that he's not "at war" with proprietary software and proprietary software makers. They aren't relevant to him one way or the other. They can either follow his way now or follow it later. Linus in confident in his methods. He doesn't need to fight anyone. (He's probably confident in his manhood as well.)

And I think this was the most damn part of his indictment of the FSF. That they're hate and fear based, and when you let hate and fear dictate your principals, you end up hurting yourself and those you want to help. A good example of this is the whole issue of specific code tied to hardware. The FSF wants so badly to hurt DRM that they are willing to hurt legitimate uses. The funny part is that DRM is going to turn out to be a non-issue. DRM is not going to be relevant for long, with no action from the FSF*.

Really, though, the ones that are going to wind up getting hurt are the FSF themselves. It will be a lot easier to rewrite the userland than it will be to rewrtire the kernel. Or so I'm told.

Some people will take up GPLv3, but I think the majority will continue to use the GPLv2. The GPLv3 people will risk getting left behind.

*Here's why DRM will fail on it's own: at this point in history, when a cartel of copyright holders are trying to wall off culture and charge admission, we have unprecedented new tools for the creation, marketing, and distribution of culture. The more that these culture holding companies try to control culture and withhold it, the more new culture will rush in to take its place. The more new culture developed, the less overall value for the walled off culture. There is no scarcity of culture and there will not be a scarcity of culture. On the contrary, music, literature, and art are set to explode. The power of the culture holding companies is already broken. Now it's just the long unwinding of their monopolies.

Re:The GPL needs to go

[Godji]

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

You sure have some really dumb lawyers. How much do you pay them?

Re:The GPL needs to go

[arkhan_jg]

This troll is posted in every GPL discussion, and most linux discussions. Ignore it, it's complete crap intended merely to provoke responses.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[joto]

Hurd is a failure because Linux exists. Without Linux, the same developers working on it would be working on Hurd (or a fork of hurd).

I seriously doubt that. Hurd development was slow before linux existed, and it remains slow after linux came to life. Now it's 15 years since linux was first created, and linux is at this stage the centerpiece of an entire industry of software products and services. Meanwhile, lots of other operating systems have been written from scratch, and I can probably list dozens that are (a) more usable than hurd, (b) younger than both hurd and linux, and (c) still written by volunteers.

Hurd development is not slow because of a lack of developers, it is slow because of bad architectural decisions, a severe case of second system effect, mach instability, failure to follow a "worse is better"-philosophy, and so on. Adding more developers to this kind of project can in many cases slow it down even further (read: "the mythical man-month").

Torvolds was in the right place at the right time, and did a competent job of capitalizing on it.

His name is Torvalds, not Torvolds. His place was minix enthusiasts, and yes, it probably was the correct place to find developers for a new free unix kernel. I'm quite sure I would disagree that he did a competent job of capitalizing on it, Torvalds remained a poor student for a pretty long time.

In this respect he is like Bill Gates, with people saying how if it hadn't been for Microsoft we'd still be using DOS.

Uh, Microsoft was the company that brought us DOS in the first place (although they didn't write it, they bought the right to it, and sold it to us consumers). And no, Torvalds is not filthy rich, like Bill Gates.

I think this kind of argument, that it could never have turned out as well without <insert person here>, is pretty absurd.

Maybe you find it absurd, but sometimes it's just the truth. The right man in the right place can and do make an important difference at times. You can argue that without Linus, someone else would soon have written a free 386 unix-clone. And you would probably be right, but what happened afterwards, the unique community, and so on, is largely a result of Linus being who he is, it would happened differently with another person at the center.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[ultranova]

All the elegance, stability, security and network-savviness of the work computer now available at home. Very nice. And the GNU tools made that possible, yes. But the free kernel was the keystone to that arch, I think. Linux could have squeaked by with few less GNU tools (albeit not without GCC), but I think all the GNU tools would have remained curiosities without the free kernel.

The GNU project was trying to create a free version of Unix - the GNU system - and was going about it in a systematic fashion, one tool at the time. The kernel was left until last, and Linux simply happened to come at the right moment, when most of the system was already up and running but the kernel wasn't.

As it happens, the GNU project does have a working kernel of their own, HURD. HURD never really took off, mainly because Linux got the snowball effect going - it got some users, some of whom began co-developing it, making it better, which in turn gained it more users and more developers and so on. Linux has almost all the developers, so HURD has almost none.

But thinking that Linux is the true success story and the GNU project just a less important side path is absurd. It's the GNU project that made Linux possible, not the other way around.

What I'm saying is that I think the future belongs more to people like Linus -- that they will have more lasting influence -- because, as the OP said, they seems more focussed on getting stuff out the door, and the FSF (and RMS in particular) seem more focussed on making sure it's the right stuff, built with the right moral philosophy, isn't going to exploit the masses or give you karma, et cetera.

You think that Linux - a single operating system kernel - is going to have more lasting influence than the whole free software movement, of which the Linux kernel is just a part of ? Especially when what allowed Linux to grow in the first place was the development model made possible by the GPL ?

I beg to differ.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[TheRaven64]

But the free kernel was the keystone to that arch, I think. Linux could have squeaked by with few less GNU tools (albeit not without GCC), but I think all the GNU tools would have remained curiosities without the free kernel

There already was a free kernel. It was called BSD, and it ran on VAX and a few other things. Due to an SCO-like lawsuit, the first x86 port was delayed by a few months, and it wasn't really ready until 1992. By this time, you could build a complete Free Software system on x86 without Linux.

These days, there are at least three Free direct descendants of the BSD kernel in active development. One is even supported by the Debian project; you can swap out the Linux kernel and install a FreeBSD kernel under Debian, and not notice the difference. Even Linux binaries work, since it has a system call translation layer (with a negligible performance hit.

The GNU project created more than just a compiler, a shell, and a few bits of userspace. I would not be at all surprised if you are running an order of magnitude (or more) more GNU code than Linux. If you're running GNOME, then you certainly are (you know what the G stands for, I presume).

Trying to build a Free Software system without Linux is trivial; I have three machines that I use regularly without a single line of proprietary code on them, and none of them runs Linux. Trying to build Free Software system without any GNU code is almost impossible.

Has Linus sold out? (was: Re:I can see both sides

[quentin_quayle]

First a minor point which keeps getting overlooked. With DRM hardware, you cannot verify GPL compliance. The only way to verify that a set of source code purporting to represent the binary that is running, is really the binary that is running, is to compile from that source and run the new binary. Any hardware that requires signed binaries prevents this unless signature capability is given to anyone who wants it. Thus without GPLv3, there cannot be public verification that any vendor of supposedly-GPL software for "trusted" hardware really is complying with the GPL. So another way to characterize the anti-DRM provision would be to call it verifiability.

Now, DrJimbo in parent post:

"Without the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about, we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers. Worse, those computers could be running the GPLv2 software we wrote even though we have lost all of our rights to further modify it and we've lost the right to even choose what software we run on our own computers."

Right, exactly - And this is what Torvalds consistently refuses to address. He snipes at GPLv3 with invective and complaints about the process (and if he really was the poster in the Groklaw thread, about the definition of source code), etc.. But on the hardware issue he just flippiantly declares that if you don't like the inability to run modified GPL code on the same device, get some other device.

This obviously ignores the "trusted computing" initiative that is intended to make all PCs slave devices, and is progressing like an onrushing freight train while DRM apologists quibble on the tracks and say "let's wait and see what it really turns out to be" or "how it is used" - then of course it will be too late.

This makes me wonder of a darker possibility which I do not like to think of ,but it fits the facts: Has Linus sold out? This is suggested by another poster below and in this post at the Newsforge thread:

"You need to understand why Torvalds opposes this. Torvalds sits behind a wall of IBM/HP (and other companies) lawyers. They pay his wages and defend him from the SCOs of the world. In return, he spouts their views... and in this case, these technology companies want this hardware in every PC very very badly. To get the level of control over the user that they want, they must be able to use a "trusted" kernel (the kernel/bios/boot loader are critical components in a trusted system).
"Basically, Torvalds has turned into a mouthpiece for technology companies. "

Otherwise why does Linus fail to address the real and appropriate concerns about TC hardware becoming exclusively available?

Re:nothing to see, move along

[Ohreally_factor]

Actually, I think it's good to have this debate, maybe even healthy. You're right, if someone's mind is made up, there's little chance that an argument of slashdot will change it. But not everyone has made up their mind, nor is everyone clear on the issues. The "article" itself is not a real help: it's really more of an editorial from one of the opposing camps.

There is a danger, however. How great this danger is is anyone's guess. It might be fairly minor. Here's how I see it:

If the OSS development community really does get divided by this, we're going to see a lot of forking going on, if members of any project disagree on changing to GPLv3. If someone who has written some code wants to keep his code under GPLv2, those that want to move to GPLv3 can remove his code and rewrite it. He can get together with other GPLv2 hold outs, pool their code and rewrite the missing bits. If this comes to pass, I see an exponential rise in the amount of duplicated effort.

It's a possible scenario. I don't know for certain whether it will be widespread or even if it's really a bad thing. Another thing I am not clear on: people are saying that GPLv3 and GPLv2 are "compatible". How will a v2 and a v3 fork be able to merge at a later date? Can the v2 fork take the v3 code and keep the v2 license?

Forget RMS and L****s. License how you want

[ishmalius]

I personally have no concern about what one weird guy or the other thinks. I will use whichever license fits into my intentions for my code. I personally almost like the idea of anti-DRM. Why? If I am generous enough to let you use my code, then it would be unfair for you to use my code to be selfish to others. Simple as that. But beyond that, I really don't care. All I really want is the basic tenet of GPL: if I give it to you and you use it, then you should be willing to do the same for others.

Remember, GPL does not take rights away. It starts with the premise that you have no right at all to use my code. It then gives you generous rights under easy conditions. Not bad, really. If a person thinks that GPL is too onerous, then he does not need to use it. Remember, it's my code.

Re:Wow, you missed the whole point of the DRM clau

[the_womble]

So you make money by re-selling other people's code with a little bit of work done on it? I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[nacturation]

That they're hate and fear based, and when you let hate and fear dictate your principals, you end up hurting yourself and those you want to help.

And we all know that this leads directly to the dark side.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[thsths]

I do use emacs, or rather xemacs, but the project is a good as dead, and certainly not the future.
I use glibc, and I would like to use it even more, but the port to Solaris is dead.
I use gdb, and I would like to use it even more, but the support for SPARC64 is very flaky.
I use gcc, and I would like to use it even more, but it does not compile to common virtual machines (Perl, Parrot, Java or CIL).
bash is nice, certainly compared to the bourne shell, but it has been like this for more then 10 years.

So while a lot of GNU tools are useful, even the very best ones leave at lot do be desired. And don't tell me to just write a patch, because it is not that easy. The missing support of virtual machines for example is a political decision of RMS, and much the same can probably be said about the Solaris port of glibc. The missing support of anti-aliased fonts in emacs is just a symptom that the project is dead.

Re:Wow, you missed the whole point of the DRM clau

[nacturation]

I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?

They've chosen to not make money from the code by releasing it under the license they have. If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it.

Re:I think Linus is right

[Stephan Gitz]

Are you on drugs? No, the marketplace will not decide because the market will be rigged. TCPA crippled hardware will be sold unmarked to prey on consumer ignorance and it will be sold at a huge loss to maintain market apathy.

You seems not to realize that TCPA should not be used kill all OpenSource on all devices with TCPA-Hardware.
OSS and DRM-Software will coexist on normal Hardware without the Problems that someone told you. They will NEVER forbid you to run own code on a PC. The Cell-Chip is one of the first CPUs that designed with Hardware-Security in mind. With the Cell-Chip you kann run a SELFMODIFID Linux and on top of it you run a DRM-Software that will get an encrypted chanel from the Processor. Please read some more about TCPA and how it Works:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/librar y/pa-cellsecurity/

There is no need to forbid you to execute your own binarys to give DRM-Software all features there need. The Problem lies only in the Embedded-Market, where Vendors can decide that there should only run the own binarys one the Hardware. But as i explained, if all gread Vendors forbit you to execute your own code, then there will rise another Vendors that will allow it to you.

Homebrew developers are a tiny percentage of the global computing device market.

The Homebrew-Community are developers AND users and together there will be enough on the global market that there will be Enterprices that meets the demands of the Homebrew-Community.

Far from embracing and welcoming community contribution, many corporates would prefer if we didn't exist,

Thats right, but prefer something will mean nothing.

which we wont the TCPA scenario plays out.

Thats Wrong. TCPA will NEVER take your posibility to run your own code on Standard-Hardware.

For a time we may be able to obtain functional hardware, until TCPA becomes so entrenched that there's a push for legislation to make it mandatory.

It is no Problem when they will make it manatory for Hardware, because you will have no Problem to execute DRM-Soft and OSS at the same time on the same PC. And there will never a Bill that force you to put your own Work in the DRM-Cage.

The situation

[Mendy]

...that I can see justifying the extra clauses in V3 is one where all the major computer manufacturers decide that their computers will only run those operating systems that are certified with them. Businesses might not object to this (if it was sold as having "security benefits") and so there wouldn't be enough of a market for people who wanted to run their own versions to justify a new "GPL Friendly" hardware company, at least not with the resources that Intel/AMD have at their disposal. The problem with attempting to use the GPL to rememdy this problem is that if the hardware manufactuer is building a check into the hardware but shipping the hardware without the software then the GPL probably doesn't apply to them. It might apply to any OEM shipping Linux with the hardware but I'm sure they'd get round the legal problems by making a click-through that put the responsibility for the combining of the two on to the end user.

For the other lesser cases where there isn't such a barrier to entry I don't see that there's a problem. If someone makes a DVD player that is unmodifyable and publishes the source of it's operating system then if there's a market for a modfiyable one a competitor can simply take the published source and build a competing product. There can also be some legitimate reasons to prevent people from modifying software - "If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish." - sounds to me like it would be impossible to make a GPL'd game that did any kind of hacked client prevention.

I think a likely outcome of all this is that any hardware manufacturer who would be likely to fall foul of these clauses will simply switch to using a non-GPL operating system, commercial or BSD and consequently Linux will miss out on contributions to infrastruture such as embedded cpu support that it might otherwise have recieved. The MPAA (or whoever it is who controls it) may also choose not to grant licences to hardware manufactuers who produce devices can run modified code that they fear could be used to circumvent their DRM.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[Ohreally_factor]

It did, did it? I guess IBM needn't have hired any lawyers, then. Looks like the just wasted money.

The GPL didn't destroy SCO, although it certainly played a part in events and may still play a part. First and foremost, SCO destroyed itself, because (as many guessed and as it now seems clear) they never had a case to begin with. All they had was a scheme (or three).

Re:I think Linus is right

[cortana]

But you are ignoring a very real way in which it (or, at least general DRM) is being used to kill open source: Tivo's abuse of the works it builds upon and distributes which are licensed under the GPL.

This is a moot argument anyway. In twenty years time, the web will have indeed reduced whatever OS we use into a poorly-debugged set of device drivers. Try applying the Four Freedoms to Google or other web applications that you use.

"vote with your wallet" doesn't work

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Issues such as DRM cannot be tackled by consumer choices in the market. There are two reasons.

First, the market is not granular enough. The consumer will never be given the choice of DRM'd CDs vs. DRMless CDs. The options are decided by marketing teams, and they will give consumers choices such as DRM'd CDs or nothing.

Secondly, like a mutual-loss based price war between two companies where the rich one waits for the poorer one to run out of funds, in this battle, if the consumers ever lose, there is no way back. Once DRM is pervasive, consumers no longer have any way to leverage the DRMers. If an ISP wants people to accept worse service, they have to offer something (such as a lower price) constantly. If a company wants consumers to accept DRM, they just have to get consumers to accept this once and to purchase DRM'd hardware (and they do this by leveraging a tangental market, such as the content industry), and then there is no way for the consumer to roll this back.

What if any is his affiliation with Transmeta now?

[D4C5CE]

it's another thing entirely to actively cheer on the introduction of DRM, which Torvalds has been doing now for a couple of years. Doesn't Linus realize that with strict hardware controls enforcing what may and may not be run, one's freedom to tinker may disappear?

Was he free to criticize platforms locked into Digital Restrictions Management while working for a company that helps build them (most recently FlexGo for Microsoft BTW) ?

Does he still have relevant ties to (t)his (former?) employer during/after "a leave-of-absense [sic]" ?

These are questions that any serious reporting on his stance needs to ask and answer - before questioning the merits of GPLv3 (that would make perfect sense for Linux anyway) just because the FSF cannot get Linus Torvalds to fully and openly agree with it (yet).

Refuted?

[nwbvt]

Thats some pretty strong language, and isn't at all appropriate for this discussion as it primarily involves opinions rather than facts. Linus disagrees with the direction GPLv3 is taking, which is his right to do. To 'refute' those comments, you would basically have to prove he has no problem with GPLv3.

Who the hell wrote this article, Richard Stallman?

wrong

[m874t232]

But so far it's been Linus who's done the most to actually change the world.

No, he has not. All Linus did was write a kernel. If he hadn't done so, there were half a dozen alternatives about to become available. Most likely, if Linus had been run over by a truck, we'd be running the BSD kernel now, or some Mach derivative.

Proving once again the superiority of actually getting working technology out the door, versus spending a decade or so fine-tuning your philosophy about how to begin working on the great technology that you will eventually design when you have the philosophy just perfect (if everyone hasn't succumbed to old age first).

That charge is totally unfair. GNU released plenty of software long before the Linux kernel was created. And the reason development on the microkernel went slowly was not because of any "fine tuning of philosophy", it was because porting and cleaning up a large, existing microkernel codebase and giving it POSIX APIs was a big project that needed to be completed in one big development effort and required the PC industry to start delivering hardware capable of running it. Linus instead delivered a flaky and incomplete kernel that became popular because it ran on PCs right away, but that required many years to beat into shape.

I've had enough troubles in my own career directly traceable to wanting to Get Things Right at the expense of Getting Things Done to appreciate this particular point with some sensitivity, not to say bitterness. Feh.

You're right: getting code out the door, even if it is inferior quality, is clearly generally good for companies and developers. It's not good for users or the community. What happened with Linux vs. Mach was somewhat analogous to what happend with DOS vs. UNIX: the quick and dirty hack won, and users ended up paying the price. Fortunately, because Linux at least copied proven UNIX APIs, the Linux cleanup avoided most of the pain that have accompanied analogous evolutions at Microsoft and Apple.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[anothy]

The GNU project was trying to create a free version of Unix - the GNU system - and was going about it in a systematic fashion, one tool at the time. The kernel was left until last, and Linux simply happened to come at the right moment, when most of the system was already up and running but the kernel wasn't.

where's my "-1 Wrong" modifier? saying GNU was trying to create a free Unix is simply laughable. you know what it stands for, right? HURD was never intended to be unix, it was intended to be something else entirely. the GNU toolset was developed on Unix because that was the best development environment available, and happened to also be the most similar to GNU's vision for HURD. the fact that the GNU tools look vaguely unix-like (at best; --some-really-long-option, for example, is decidedly un-unixy) is almost more of a coincidence. they were explicitly not trying to create a free Unix.

As it happens, the GNU project does have a working kernel of their own, HURD. HURD never really took off, mainly because Linux got the snowball effect going - it got some users, some of whom began co-developing it, making it better, which in turn gained it more users and more developers and so on. Linux has almost all the developers, so HURD has almost none.

HURD never took off due to the lack of a clearly articulated vision, lack of leadership, and the fact that Linux filled most of the true goals of the contributors: "gimme something free i can use that mostly works". sure, Linux getting all the flash in the media and schools biases people towards working on that over other kernels, but HURD can't put all their failings on Linux's shoulders. the various BSD's - hell, even Plan 9 - manage to progress further and more quickly than HURD does, despite HURD being the pet project of GNU's nominal head.

But thinking that Linux is the true success story and the GNU project just a less important side path is absurd. It's the GNU project that made Linux possible, not the other way around.

really? can you document that? to me, it sounds like speculation. i disagree, and think it's the other way around: without a useful core, the tools would've remained just a curiosity. by contrast, by 1994 (at the latest; possibly as early as 1991), Linux could've just used the BSD user-land stuff (and, IMHO, we'd all have been better off). Linux didn't make GNU possible, that's true - but it made it relevant.

You think that Linux - a single operating system kernel - is going to have more lasting influence than the whole free software movement, of which the Linux kernel is just a part of ?

that's not what the parent said. he said the future belongs to people like Linus more than people like RMS. that's true. even within the GNU world there's these differences in outlook and the results become apparent.

Especially when what allowed Linux to grow in the first place was the development model made possible by the GPL ?

stop drinking GNU's cool-aid. what allowed Linux to grow initially was the open space for a free unix-like system on the most common cheap hardware. initially, the "development model" was Linus hacking on things. then it was a bunch of people hacking on things, and Linus putting the bits together. the development model was not new, and was not invented by GNU.

Re:Has Linus sold out? (was: Re:I can see both sid

[Ohreally_factor]

He's written pretty extensively on this issue. He does not see the threat of totalitarian Trusted Computing happening. I happen to agree. This is a paranoid fantasy put into your head by RMS and others to further their own agenda.

You're calling me a troll? You're the one suggesting that Linus has sold out. I'm not even a big Linus fan, but I'm aware of his contributions and I have respect for the man. And it amazes me that you could even ask that question about him. It's really astonishing. How can you maintain it's an "honest question"? At best, it's a stupid and reckless question. At worst, it's a calculated smear. I just don't get how you people can impugn his integrity and at the same time, not question the integrity of RMS, well known for his demagoguery.

Let me ask you this: In your mind, are there no good uses for trusted computing? Are there never circumstances where trusted computing could be applied without evil effect? Or is all trusted computing inherently evil and must be stamped out?

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[anothy]

Trying to build Free Software system without any GNU code is almost impossible.

that's only true depending on how you define "Free Software". given that you're using the capital F and S, you seem to imply GNU's definition of "Free", as embodied in the GPL. in which case, sure, you can't build a system which is based on GNU's philosophy without a good chunk of GNU's code. but is that surprising? it's practically a tautology.

not everybody cares about GNU's philosophy, and they certainly didn't invent the idea of open source or free (little-f) software. using the broader definition of "free software", you can do exactly what you're asking with BSDs with not too much work at all, and there's plenty of free (even OSI-approved) systems out there which contain no GPL code at all (see Plan 9 for an example). you have a very narrow view of the world is all.

Re:Sure to happen

[squiggleslash]

Right, because we're going to get a choice.

Like we did with DVDs. We can buy the DRM free hardware and DRM free DVDs of our favorite movies, or we can buy the DRM'd versions of both. Except we can't. Because in the vast majority of cases, the content we want is only available in a DRM'd form.

With the greatest of respect, the argument that this can be dealt with by "consumers" is utter and complete crap. The choices that need to be available for consumers to deal with this issue are non-existant. In order for DRM to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with at every level. This means consumers avoiding it where possible. It means Free Software authors chosing licenses that ensure DRM proponents can't leverage the work of the Free Software community when building their content prisons. It means constant advocacy. It means lobbying politicians against DMCA like laws and in favour of liberalizations.

No one single system is going to prevent DRM from taking hold. We already have one source of media, movies, now completely locked up by DRM schemes and where the only workarounds are illegal. This will spread. It will get worse. The laws are getting worse. Consumers are getting less choices. Companies like TiVo are benefiting from the same communities they're undermining, using GNU and Linux to create their products while simultaneously undermining the freedom of their users. For anyone to claim that this can be dealt with using one single simple solution "Duh, let market forces fix it! Consumers rulez, they are always informed enough to make the right choices and will always have the choices to begin with" is being desperately naive.

And, personally, I cannot see how DRM is consistant with Free Software. The GPL is not the BSD license. It does take pro-active steps to ensure the software so-licensed remains Free. Allowing DRM would be a bug in the GPL, it's not something that can be allowed, because it amounts to a loophole. By all means, argue against these kinds of things being added to the BSD license, but there absolutely must be provisions against DRM in the GPL, otherwise the GPL ceases to have any meaning.

Freedom to choose

[Ben Rigas]

I can see this from both points of view, but ultimately Linus has the freedom to choose what he wants to do. If you don't like his choice, don't use Linux anymore! If you are really a developer/user who cares that much about GPL v3, then go work on HURD.

Isn't it hypocritcal to advocate freedom, while at the same time attempting to take Linus' freedom to choose away from him? You are welcome to disagree with him, but you should respect his right to choose.

But does it help?

[pnambic]

As far as I can see it, DRM technology poses three distinct major threats to developers' and users' freedoms:

1. locked digital media
This is where the GPLv3 works, sort of. You cannot take a GPLv3ed media player, add some DRM component, and distribute the result while keeping the key that unlocks the media secret. That's fair. Unfortunately, there is a large range of non-GPLed media players available. In the end, FOSS users will still have to resort to hacks, but they're not worse off in that respect than they are now, and at least the code they worked on won't be used to prevent them from doing what they want.

2. locked FOSS-using devices (the Tivo scenario)
I think the FSF, and software developers advocating GPLv3, are seriously overstepping their bounds here. Basically, they're telling hardware developers that in order to use FOSS, not only do they need to give freely what they freely received (which is just reasonable), but they also have to make THEIR OWN product convertable to any use their customers see fit. This immediately excludes building devices that need to assure overall system integrity (from fair network gaming through to voting machines) and also excludes a number of fairly reasonable business models (hardware has a significantly non-zero duplication cost, unlike software, and the money has to come from somewhere). Alternatively, they can choose to make their machines physically tamper-proof (which defeats the intent of the license, makes the license unverifiable, and the product unrepairable in case of software problems). The net result will simply be that hardware developers will stop considering the use of FOSS, which will lead to them getting what they want anyway, FOSS code getting less exposure and less fixes, and end users receiving an arguably less technologically sound product at a higher price.

3. locked general-purpose computers
The GPLv3 can't do squat about thread 3. If such devices do indeed appear, they will simply not be running FOSS. Ever. Because even if a vendor would like to offer an OS based on some hypothetical GPLv3ed kernel, the license wouldn't allow it.

So, looking at the above, I can't help but think that Linus is right here. I have the utmost respect for RMS and the members of the various committees, I'm even a paid-up and (CD-)card-carrying member of the FSF (#2342), but so far they have failed in providing a satisfactory solution to the problems ahead.

Please prove me wrong.

Re:But does it help?

[ghettoimp]

"This immediately excludes building devices that need to assure overall system integrity (from fair network gaming through to voting machines)"

I don't see why it would prevent you from developing voting machines based on GPL'd code. I mean, who cares if Joe Hacker can see and make their own versions of the voting software, as long as he can't install it on the voting machines on election day. This is a social problem of having safeguards and procedures, not a question of open or closed sources.

Re:But does it help?

[pnambic]

> If you think the license has the balance wrong, comment on it at http://gplv3.fsf.org./

My basic objections - in soundbite form, as unfortunately encouraged by the interface - seem to have been submitted already; I'll still mail the text below to the comment system, in the hope that a human being might encounter it somewhere in there. ;)

> [...] (I'm on Committee D, in case it wasn't clear.) You can see what else I've written on it [...]here: http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk/projects/gpl v3/issues/drm_allowing_authentication/.

That was a very interesting read indeed, and confirms that Linus was and still is wrong about the process. I still think he's right about the result so far, though. Here's what I'll submit to the e-Mail comment system in a few minutes, both "for the record" of this thread, and as a shameless attempt to exploit the attention of a committee member, if it does get dropped:

I feel deeply uncomfortable with the following section, specifically with the *marked* sentences:

Terms and Conditions, section 1, paragraph 4

The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. *If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.*) A key need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has the key and can read and copy it, as in privacy applications where users generate their own keys. *However, the fact that a key is generated based on the object code of the work or is present in hardware that limits its use does not alter the requirement to include it in the Corresponding Source.*

This specifically allows modified versions to hide the fact that they are modified. Thereby it creates two technical problems:

• it makes it impossible to verify and certify distributed systems consisting in whole or in part of (derived works of) Free Software.
• it makes it impossible to verify the integrity of a distribution package consisting of Free Software and hardware and/or non-free software, e.g. to determine eligibility for support or warranties.

These seem to me to exclude Free Software from a substantial set of reasonable and legitimate applications in existence today or foreseeable for the future.

Additionally, it seems to be in conflict with the following provision:

Terms and Conditions, section 5, paragraph 2

a) The modified work must carry prominent notices stating that you changed the work and the date of any change.

In particular, the section quoted earlier seems to amend this with, "unless the notice would be machine-readable, in which case the modified work may choose not to carry such a notice". This serves as a strong deterrent to authors of original works to free those works if they customarily provide them e.g. as part of a hardware package on which they in turn provide a warranty.

Lastly, this whole issue seems to open up a veritable can of worms with regards to the definition of "derived work" vs. "aggregate". In the case of Tivo for example, the distribution package consists of a computer with some proprietary hardware on which some free software and some proprietary software is installed, all of which works properly only in connection with an online service. Now for some reasons, the proprietary software part is s

Re:But does it help?

[dodobh]

And in all these cases, the end user is losing out on being able to use the hardware/software as (s)he pleases. This is precisely what the FSF is trying to prevent.

Re:But does it help?

[init100]

Does that sound like a logical argument to you? Is this really about users' freedoms?

You can't upgrade to your modified version, but they (the vendor) can't either. This is more equal that "they can, but you can't".

Re:Wow, you missed the whole point of the DRM clau

[Jack9]

If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it

Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism. Once you understand that, you might have an idea of why Torvalds' criticisms have validity.

Re:yeah but guess who owns the future?

[Lord Kano]

But thinking that Linux is the true success story and the GNU project just a less important side path is absurd. It's the GNU project that made Linux possible, not the other way around.

GNU is what made Linux possible. Linux is what made GNU successful.

They need each other. They're both necessary and important. Why quibble over which one is more necessary and important?

LK

Re:Sure to happen

[lgw]

DRM and TCPA are user hostile technologies, support can and will be ripped out of Open Source code. There is no argument here, I will not running DRM or TCPA compliant code, period.

I've been seeing senseless rants like this increasingly on Slashdot. It's like some superstition. All Trusted Computing does is give ownership of a computer to whoever owns the master keys.

If you have the master keys (as you would, on a box you built yourself) then Trusted Computing means you *really* own your computer. You can prevent rootkit installation, and guarentee access to content no matter how DRM-encrusted. If someone else has the master key, why would you pay money for something you don't own?

Re:Sure to happen

[packeteer]

I didn't say he WAS corrupted. I just wanted to remind everyone than nobody is immune from corruption, nobody. Look at the evidence however. I know its not a lot to work with but it seems like Linus is supporting things that many of us think are bad. That does not make him outright bad for linux or anything like that. I am just saying that we cant just assume he is perfect in every way and we can leave it in his hands.

Someone disagrees with you, so they must be a troll? What the fuck is wrong with you?

A matter of personal choice

[Requiem18th]

I write free software because I want my users to be able change their software. If my users can't change my code how is it good for me? It is my personal choice not to subsidise DRM device producers. Do you have a problem with that?

refutation doesn't matter

[eliot1785]

They might have refuted Linus's criticism, but his criticism is still there. The reality is that this little feud between Linus and FSF matters less as a logical debate and more as a practical issue. If Linus is unhappy with GPLv3 and decides not to adopt it for the Linux kernel, that will be a major blow for GPLv3 no matter how you cut it, because it will have a domino effect in which it is not adopted as a new standard.

It may be that the other GNU project tools like gcc are indispensible parts of the Linux operating system. I don't know enough to know for sure. But the Linux kernel is also an indispensible part, and if you start having the operating system split between GPLv2 and GPLv3, new projects will justified in following the Linux kernel's lead and sticking with GPLv2.

Another issue here that may not be fully appreciated is that many people already think that GPLv2 already goes too far. By going even farther, GPLv3 is going to turn off even more people to the GPL project. It may be that the goals it establishes are justified. But if even Linus Torvalds is turned off by this, I wonder what corporate users of Linux will say...?

Also - one theory I'd like to just throw out there is the possibility that while current replacements for many of the GNU tools may be lacking, if they adopt GPLv3 and corporate customers like Google and Sun don't like them because of restrictions on usage, they may spearhead the development of replacements.

Likewise, any GPL version that places clear requirements on web applications developed using programs under that version (e.g. you must GPL those web applications) will never see adoption by Google etc. Assuming this is where FSF is going, the GPL will ultimately destroy itself by becoming too extreme.

Re:Sure to happen

[Identifiable Coward]

If you have the master keys (as you would, on a box you built yourself) then Trusted Computing means you *really* own your computer. You can prevent rootkit installation, and guarentee access to content no matter how DRM-encrusted. If someone else has the master key, why would you pay money for something you don't own?

If, as you suggest, we shall be in control of the "master" keys then I fail to see how it would help the content industry.

If, as I suspect, someone else shall be in control of the "master" keys then I can see perfectly clearly how it would help the content industry.

As the idea of TC and DRM are being pushed by the content industry I think it would seem logical to assume that my suspicions are in fact correct.