Slashdot Mirror
GPLv3 - A Primer on Open Warfare in Open Source
savio13 writes "A BusinessWeek article about the GPLv3 starts to shed some light on where things are, and what the hold up is in getting the newest version out. They discuss the Stallman vs. Torvalds conflict, issues with DRM, the goal of 'one-stop licensing', and the ever-more-likely possibility that the newest version of the GPL just isn't relevant." From the article: "The impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software. And the resulting rifts were apparent at last week's LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco. On one side is Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too. Companies will just vote with their feet."
While it's pretty early in the process still, it seems a bit unfair to characterise it as "Stallman vs. Torvalds". IIRC, Newsforge tried to contact others who were unhappy with the licence and couldn't find any - the only criticism has been offered by HP saying that the changes on patents still weren't enough for them or something, but that they were happy with the process.
It sounds like a mountain of a story being made out of a molehill of comments.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
Are u from the future where GPLv3 has already been finalised and there are softwares being licensed under it? If yes will you please tell me if google did build a moon base in 2016?
Linus didn't write it, though. Linus wrote the original kernel. Much of the operating system (meaning the kernel plus system utilities) is GNU software, many of which existed as mature software well before the Linux kernel came about, which is where the GNU/Linux argument comes from.
I agree with you that trying to get people to refer to it as GNU/Linux is a lost battle, but to say the reason is because Linus wrote it is silly. Stallman has probably written more code that is currently used in the Linux operating system than Torvalds has.
I think that the reason the GPL has been so popular is because it served the needs of the developers that used it. I think that everyone involved in the GPLv3 process is going to recognize that they need to put the needs of the community first, and in the end -- everyone is going to be mostly happy.
:)
Or nobody will use it.
Obliterate advertising!
Here's the newsforge story ("Torvalds' comments on GPLv3 committees refuted").
I blogged about this and added more info about the committees.
One last think I want to point at is a side-by-side diff with the changes highlighted from draft 1 to draft 2 so everyone can see the responses to the public process that the committees talk about in the Newsforge article.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I don't really understand what is the exact problem with GPL 3. If free software means one must be free to alter the software he runs, it was implied that one must be able to alter the software he runs and be able to test it. Unfortunately it was not directly said in GPL 2 and companies were using this fact as a tool to deny others to modify the code and use it. Now it will said in GPL 3.
I mean, it is like, you are free to say whatever you want but no voice should come out. Of course it should! That is what is meant with freedom!
And those who say it just brings out good code, well, for me, freedom is not about being good or bad, but being free. The whole GPL was based on the free-software philosophy. If you didn't like the philosophy, you didn't need to adhere to GPL in the first place. If you did, nothing is being changed!
Btw, nowadays(tm) even Linus is not adding much to the kernel but is more into maintaining it. And the real concern of Linus is that companies contributing to Kernel may panic and stop doing so. What is this RMS vs. Linus?
I hate to do it, but I have to agree with Stallman on the one actual point of disagreement mentioned in TFA. That is, if a hardware manufacturer releases source for a software product which drives their hardware but the hardware won't actually run modified versions, that's not really "open source" (and certainly not "free software"). That's "look but don't touch".
And here is way - if it was true than Microsft and Apple should be calling their software "BSD/Windows" and "BSD/OSX", since they both have lots of BSD software in them.
The userland != the OS. The OS *is the kernel*. The rest is just tools on top. I could install the BSD userland on the Linux kernel, and it would still be Linux. "GNU/Linux" is just RMS ego-stoking - you don't *have* to use the GNU utilities with the Linux kernel.
Dare I ask why you can't or shouldn't? The simple fact is, the GPL is doing mostly today what it was designed to do, to give users the freedoms that Stallman set-out to insure existed in GPLed code. To me, the work of GNU has created a moral and social reform in some sense, by making people realize it is possible to run ever increasing sections of one's system on an open and modifiable platform.
And those people have it. At the same time, users want the freedom to take the work of others and fit it to their needs while at the same time allowing others to benefit from their work.
So, a new license offering more choice is intended to feed mindless zealots? Why with language like that, you must be against the creation of all sorts of new licenses!
If you want to control your users, then the GPL isn't for you. Nor was it ever designed to be. But don't be surprised when this means you can't use the GPL code of others.
Yea, that bastard Stallman. How dare he write up a new license to further refine his intentions. By God, it's almost as if he's the copyright holder of GNU and as a "developer" wants to decide what others do with his code. Hell, he sounds just like you. The funny thing is, he's interested in furthering user freedom. Clearly anyone who cares about the freedom of the common man is Far Left.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The article argues that copyleft (not free software) is anti-business. This is clearly not true because the copylefted free Unix-like operating system (GNU/Linux) has far more business contributions and business models base on it than the non-copylefted free Unix-like operating systems (the free BSDs).
So companies have voted with their feet and have sent a clear message that they will work with copylefted free software.
The GNU GPL requires that everyone play fair. Many companies will look for ways to be the only person who is exempt from the rules, but free software will not gain acceptance by ditching copyleft and pandering to a few new best friends.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
The impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software.
I think most free software advocates take great pains to state they aren't anti-profit. They're against profit gained from activities they see as immoral.
It sometimes seems like this is the same position, but it's not. Any position of morality has this effect whether it is being against slavery or child exploitation. Accepting any moral rule is bound to render some profitable activities immoral. What muddies the water is when you have a lot at stake. It's hard to reason objectively if you see great harm or great benefits from one course of action vs. another.
You end up weighing one set of envisioned benefits and harms vs. another. This is where moral reasoning gets tricky becuase you are no longer in the world of pure ideas, but dealing with predictions and probabilities.
DRM is a perfect example. Much depends on what you project the impact of widely adopted DRM to be. Human reasoning being what it is, when we are for something we see the benefits clearly and have trouble perceiving the downsides; when we are against it the opposite holds. DRM advocates believe that artists can only surivive economically with DRM; opponents think artists will find a way to survive. Opponents think DRM will be the end of intellectual freedom; proponents think that people will find a way to express themselves.
There is a third philosophical position, which is agnostic but somewhat libertarian:whether or not you are for DRM, if people want to link DRM modules into your code it's none of your business. Yet, I think, that people in this position might have trouble defending it if they truly believed the end of intellectual freedom would result.
Finally there are the radical positions: DRM is wrong whether it is good for society or not. OR: protection of indvidual intellectual property is paramount no matter what the cost to society. By in large people who take the radical positions will also claim that pragmatism backs them up. However, I think this actually makes them less convincing. The only reason to trot out practical consequences is if your hearer doesn't agree with your fundamental position.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The linux kernel can be used more or less standalone or with non GNU tools and it'll still be linux. Remove the kernel from linux and what have you got? A bunch of unrunnable tools.
You can run all of the GNU tools on a wide variety of other kernels, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The GNU set of tools existed well before Linux, and they would certainly have a great deal of value even if Linux had never been written. The Linux kernel without any tools at all is essentially useless. What's the point of having a running kernel if you don't even have a shell?
Calling it GNU/Linux acknowledges the fact that GNU tools have always provided a big part of the core of the operating system. However, that's not to say that I personally advocate calling it GNU/Linux. Personally, I think that name is just to cumbersome to ever gain widespread acceptance, and it's pointless to try and get people to use it.
This is of course rubbish. To use the GPL version 3 is simply a statement that you do not wish your work to be close-sourced by stealth. To insist that everyone use GPL v3 may be zealotry, but to use it yourself is not. To suggest that only mindless zombies would use the GPL version 3 is zealotry on your own behalf.
As for GPL version 2 being popular, well, why not let the market sort it out? The GPL version 3 may well prove itself in due course.
How is wanting people to respect the terms of your licence 'far left' in any case?
Wikileaks, no DNS
If you can read this, thank a teacher
If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier
If you use GNU/Linux, thank RMS
If you can run your OSS program sans a compiler, then you could thank Linus.
The point is that like the soldier, RMS made it possible for Linus to excel with his Kernel.
It could also be argued that Hurd wasn't getting the job done and Linus did.
But in the final analysis you need to consider which came first - no GNU tools, no nice OS to use - the kernel is just a file system, a very useful one, true, but only when combined with the free things RMS had spent years fighting for..
One should never forget, or undervalue the soldier - even when it 'seems' his time has passed... because it never really does.
And yes you can just put me down as a FSF fanboy... I'm rather proud of it.
If Stallman spent half as much time writing code as correcting people, Hurd might actually be out by now. I think it would be great if someone put out a version of Linux that used all BSD userland crap just to prove the point. Call it BSD/Linux just to confuse the crap out of people.
That's a mis-characterization of Richard Stallman's viewpoint. He doesn't believe that all software source code should be available to the public. Rather, he believes that all source code should be available to the end user. There is an important difference.
'Free' software is not about creating a gigantic repository of source code. It's about each user having the freedom to modify the computer software they are using. A group of users can keep a piece of software (and associated source code) hidden from the public quite easily. The point RMS is trying to make is that it is inneficient, artificial and even immoral to restrict the user of software from viewing/modifying the internals of said software.
Of course when software is intended for public consumption, then under the FSF ideal the source code will be available to the public (and indeed we end up with repositories like sourceforge). But to comply with the GPL you don't need to post your code on a public server: you need only make it available to the users.
The two biggest sticking points are patents and digital rights management. HP's objection is a part of the license that says anything touched by GPL code becomes open source. In other words, if a company bundles its hardware with open-source software and ships it to customers, it surrenders rights to enforce patents.
The author of the article has confused a lot of old FUD with the issues dug up by Tivo. Patens and DRM are the focus of GPL 3 because they undermine the intentions of the GPL. The enemies of free software have bought a lot of bad legislation and piles of bogus patents. That's why a change in the GPL is happening. Let's keep looking.
When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software
It's amazing how the copyright warriors can be so heavy about author intentions and control of work on one hand and then so completely misrepresent this issue on the other. The issue that GPL 3 is trying to fix is best represented by Tivo. Tivo runs GPL'd software and the makers have enjoyed great quality and savings by doing that. The problem is that they have managed to completely thwart all of the GPL's and the software author's intentions with DRM. Tivo will give you a copy of the source code for their device. You can compile it but you can't run it because Tivo locked the hardware with software keys. It won't run your changes. This might not seem like a big deal to people who are used to non free video boxes, until they realize that the Tivo is not very different from any other computer. Without GPL 3, non free software companies can freely use the entire GPL codebase but lock out their users worse than Bill Gates ever imagined. This is an issue that the copyright warriors can't win if they pretend any respect for the author.
I suppose that's why the specter of "big business" is brought up. IBM, Chrysler and others can tell you there's nothing anti-business about the present GPL. They are making and saving tons of money without stepping on their users or the authors of the software they use. When you drop user rights and author rights all you are left with to argue is "non free is better for business" which is something few people will believe.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I love how you spin that, "they cannot force me to give up my *private keys*!!"
Let's look at it the other way. Should people be able to put restrictions on the users of free software, which effectively prevents them from taking advantage of the rights that the license gives them?
If you like the Apache 2.0, that's cool. If you like the GPL 2.0, that's also cool. What's uncool is taking software someone else wrote under something like the GPL v3, and removing the rights that the author has provided to end-users. That's like someone taking software under Apache 2.0, but not giving the end-users the patent grant, so that they are unable to defend themselves to patent claims.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
I think BW underestimates the relevance of the FSF. Yes, Linux uses GPLv2 only. Yes Mozilla uses their own license. But if you look at the basic toolchain that Linux, Mozilla and the like use, the majority of that infrastructure's copyright rests with... the Free Software Foundation. Use GCC to compile? Depend on Bash, flex, bison? They'll be moving to GPLv3. Even something as basic as grep, chances are if you're on a Linux system you use the FSF's version of it.
It's also going to depend on developers, not companies (unless those companies are also the developers and copyright holders on the programs). I'd note that one of the tipping points for the GPL was when people started to find GPL'd software in commercial products which the code owners themselves were locked out of by lack of source code. I think the same pattern will repeat, with the GPLv3 being RMS-only for a bit and then it'll pick up steam when a few high-profile developers want to modify a neat device and find they're locked out of modifying their own code by DRM.
That said, it's unlikely the Linux kernel will ever move to GPLv3 regardless of what Linus thinks simply because of the infeasability of contacting every copyright holder. It's been mentioned as a protection: there's so many copyright holders no company (say, Microsoft) could get authorization from all of them to put their release of the Linux kernel under a more restrictive license. The same thing applies to any contemplated change to GPLv3.
One of the problems that we are having with creating GPL3 is that a license is not a very effective way to solve the DRM and software patent problems. DRM and software patents are embedded in the law. When there is a conflict between the law and a license then the law takes precedence. So GPL3 does not have much maneuvering room to solve the problems that DRM and software patents cause Open Source.
I agree with Richard Stallman's efforts to put clauses in GPL3 to alleviate the DRM and software patent problems. However, I don't have much hope that these clauses will be very effective.
I think that a much more effective course of action is to try to change the laws on DRM and software patents. I think that we should lobby governments all over the world to abolish software patents. In the case of DRM I think that the DRM copyright protection should be legal but that the DRM laws should not contain clauses making it illegal to create software or hardware which can copy DRM protected material. The act of copying copyrighted material should be illegal but the act of creating a copying machine should be legal.
-----------------------
Steve Stites
ARRRGHGHGHGHGHH!! If I read this once more I'll puke. Why doesn't the FSF rename itself to the Freedom Software Foundation and stop explaining it over and over and over and over and over and over...
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
At GPLv2 there weren't clear definitions of "modified version", "interaction", or "source code", for that matter.
And I can't see why the technical detail of using the software through a network, instead that in the same machine, should vary the intent of the GPL - which is to allow the users of a program, in any form, the freedom to tailor it to their needs and execute it in their own.
Encapsulating the program in a remote server in effectively a way to circunvect the freedom protected by GPL. Why should it be allowed by the license? How does preventing this loophole become a "stretching" of the original intent?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
A linux operating system cannot work without a CPU.
Therefore the CPU is part of the linux operating system.
Therefore the operating systems which I use are AMD/linux and Intel/linux.
(from here)
Linus has said before that he could have used any compiler, and any userland, its just that GNU was there at the right time. A distro could be built on BSD, or an environment based on icc (yes, it compiles the kernel)
You misunderstand the new version of the GPL entirely.
You don't have to share your encryption key, as long as someone without it can modify the software and have it run as normal. Your signing key is yours alone, and as long as your program will run after modification without it, you're fine. The only time you have to share such a key is if it impossible to run a modified copy of the software on the relevant hardware without that key.
Close, but you still overstate when the GPL3 requires you to give people your keys. For example you can keep a private key and sign software enabling people to authenticate that it came from you or that you certify it, and you can give them the GPL software without turning over your key.
The way I'd put it is that the GPL has always required you to supply the COMPLETE source code that is needed to sucessfully compile the intended WORKING executable. Look at the Tivo case for example. What happens if Tivo themselves attempt to compile their software for its intened use, and they do not use their private key during the compilation process, and they do not embed that crypto signature in that executable? Then they themselves would be incapable of making the intended working executable. That signature is in fact a functional element of the executable, and the key is in fact a required portion of the source code for compilation.
The GPL3 simply clarifies that that key is indeed a part of the source. This is simply clarifying the origingal intent and fuction of the GPL. That either the original GPL already covers this sort of case (and simply no one has tested this issue legally), or this sort of case is an abusable loophole in the original GPL and the GPL3 simply closes that loophole.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.