Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

diegocgteleline.es writes "A group of 29 Linux kernel developers have recently come together and produced a position statement on GPLv3 (PDF, txt) explaining why, essentially, they don't like it. 'The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current license proposal ... we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanization of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely'. They've also run a GPLv3 poll."

Comments

Notable names *not* on the list

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

• Linus Torvalds
• Alan Cox

Anybody else?

Re:Notable names *not* on the list

[sumdumass]

And when a majority of the code uses a license statment that says

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation version 2

you cannot apply version 3 to it.

Besides, If you would have read the article, you would find some of the objections relating to the compatability of GPLv3 with GPLv2. It apears they have a valid point about this in some aspects.

When the GPLv2 was adopted, the intent wasn't to limit what a company could it if they followed the Provisiosn in the GPL. several years after the release, they started worrying about "tivoisation" and added stuff to the license text to make it apear it wasn't allowed. This is one of the biggest reasons the GPLv3 is being drafted, to address issues created by adding wording to the original GPLv2 licenes,

I'm with the other guy. I'm staying with GPLv2. Take the activism and run away to somewere else. Don't be surprised if the kernel people enforce the GPLv2 rules on the fork wishing to use GPLv3 and in the process destroy the FSF's effectivness and credibility. Of course it apears they are doing that themselves now. GPLv3 needs a lot of work before it is final!

Re:Notable names *not* on the list

[gbjbaanb]

Well, its kind of like comparing GPLv3 to GPLv2 seems to be very similar to comparing GPLv2 to BSD - its all about end-user freedoms. Forget whichever one you like for the moment please.

In the case of GPLv2 v BSD, the issue is that one forces you to re-release your source, whereas the other allows you to do whatever you like with it.

With GPLv3 v GPLv2, the issue is that one forces you to stop using DRM features, whereas the other allows you to do whatever you like with this kind of code.

So, I think that its a matter of how much restrictions of freedom you like to impose upon your end-users. The linux devs seem to be saying that they agree with the GPLv2 ones because, whilst restrictive, those restrictions are necessary for the benefit of the F/OSS society. They do not like GPLv3 because the restrictions go too far beyond that and seek to impose its will for reasons that are not strictly necessary.

I almost like to compare it to Communism - Leninist policies were about freedoms, egalitarianism, and sharing the wealth; Stalinist policies were about telling you what you should think. In Soviet Russia, they use GPLv4 :-) (I hope all that made sense, my excuse is one beer too many if it didn't)

The resurgence of the BSD license?

[Anonymous Coward]

All this debate over the GPLv3 has been quite useful. These are issues that the community needs to discuss and consider. One of the outcomes of this appears to be a resurgence of the BSD license. I have talked and written to many open source developers who have become quite disappointed with the FSF and its stance with regards to the GPLv3. Many developers consider it far too restrictive, uncertain, and overly complex. Most of the time, developers just don't want to get bogged down in unnecessary legalities.

A good portion of those people I have talked to have said that they are seriously considering using the BSD license for future releases (if it's within their power to make the change), or otherwise using the BSD license for new developments. Many gave their reason as being a mix of licensing simplicity, and commmercial friendliness. While it was far more difficult to take a GPL'ed application commercial, it's much easier to do with BSD-licensed software. Aside from a very small group of ideological thinkers, many in the open source community would like to be able to make a solid living off of their efforts. The BSD license allows for that quite easily.

Going with a license as simple and straightforward as the BSD license often helps everyone. The developer can just develop, without getting bogged down in answering questions about how their software may be used, or other license-related issues. Users understand what they can do with the software much easier. That likely won't be the case for the GPLv3, where even many developers are unsure as to what it will permit and not permit.

Re:The resurgence of the BSD license?

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Imagine a situation where a group of people works hard for a few years on an OSS project, brings it out, do the "marketing", sweat blood fixing the bugs and problems which never occured in the lab, builds up the reputation, finally sees that their product is GOOD and that there is a certain market for it and decides to try and make a living out of it by offering a commercial support while still keeping the product development at the same high level as up till now. The product, of course, should remain OSS.

Now imagine that at the same time, a mediocre closed source company with a competing but much worse product is also trying to make the living in the same area. They have a professionaly organized support, a great market presence due to being the only game in the town, but a bug-ridden, bloated and unstable product with horrible performance and unacceptable user interface. The only thing that keeps the company away from bankrupcy is that their project was first on the market and has some name recognition attached to it (it's not far fetched at all - just look at all the god-awful Rational products, and you'll know what I'm talking about).

For the company with OSS product, the life starts looking good. They are not rich, but they make a good living off of the hard work they invested in the past 4-5 years.

Now, if the OSS company went with the BSD licence, what would be there to keep the closed source company from fixing/improving their product by stealing parts of the OSS comany's work? By doing so, they might be able to improve their product up to a point where their customers stop running away to the OSS competition (more often than not, customers are quite shy of changing the software they use, even if the software sucks). Gradually, the image of the closed source product becomes better, and the market share starts increasing again. Due to the good work of our OSS heroes.

Where does that leave the OSS guys? They have a great product into which they invested a great amount of their time and blood, they have a good support, they decided to bet their future onto success of that product. And then they just said "look, guys, if somebody wants it, well - just take it away, we don't care".

Algorithms shall be as free as possible, of course. I could imagine accepting an idea of a *LIMITED* (say, 1-2, years AT MOST) software patents for REALLY new/innovative stuff, and only in the case the patent holder also has a product using that algorithm. The code, however, is what I want to keep as safe from leechers and competition as possible. You can take a look at it, you can learn from it, you can contribute to the code, but you can NOT steal it and close it.

BSD license is "a true freedom, my friend" for leechers. It's not a freedom for the author(s) of the code or for the code itself.

but...

[joe 155]

I'm havign a hard time understanding what all the problems with GPL v3 are about. We know that Linus isn't happy with it, we know a lot of people aren't keen on it. Because of this we will see a lot of projects stay on v2, with a few (and maybe an increasing number) go to v3. But why is this a problem? I think split licences are a good thing in this context, because I support freedom of choice. That's what we're here for in the first place isn't it? More choice is better.

So long as we can make the versions work with each other then there is no problem.

The GPL, whether it is version 2 or 3 will still be a sign to all end users that you can trust that the software will not take your rights and will be free (in both ways)

They are at least partly wrong, IMHO

[YA_Python_dev]

IANAL, but reading the draft of the GPLv3 (which is IMO pretty clear and easy to understand for a legal document) I think those kernel developers are wrong on at least two points:

• "The additional restrictions clause will be a licensing headache for distributors and may cause splintering among the community depending on what restrictions are included."
  AFAICT all different customizations of the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 will always be compatible, no matter what restrictions you choose, so I can't see how this can be a problem for distributors;
• in the article they say that "defining what constitutes DRM abuse is essentially political in nature"; but the draft never uses the acronym DRM or anything else ambiguos: the draft has a section titled "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures." and I can't see how this (and the actual content of the section) can be ambigous or political.

Everything is IMVHO, of course. And different opinions on something as important as the next GPL are extremely useful: the FSF has already demonstrated to be able to listen and change their opinion (see the changes between the first and the second draft).

Re:They are at least partly wrong, IMHO

[carou]

The political part is in defining exactly what "user's rights" might be. Self-evidently, DRM cannot deny your rights if you don't have the right to do what it's denying.

Waffle? I'd like some details.

[twitter]

The use of GPLv3 as a tool against DRM co-opts the work of thousands of people for the FSF's political ends, which they consider a violation of said trust (they do consider DRM a bad thing, they just don't want to be pulled into the FSF's war against it).

No one can make them change their license, can they?

Interestingly enough, your summary contains almost all of the information in the article itself, and that's dissapointing. I'd at least have liked to see links to some of the supposed problems with encryption they claim has caused so many rewrites. Just the same, I'll quote what I think is the heart of what they say:

... section 3 forbids us from ever accepting any licence which contains end use restrictions. The existence of DRM abuse is no excuse for curtailing freedoms.

Curtail who's freedom? Mine? No thanks and I'll see you later.

DRM is something none of us should contribute to. Restricting user rights to use and modify and change software goes against everything that made the GPL a success in the first place. One of the reasons BSD is not as used is because software licensed that way could easily be used by those who are working against everyone's freedom. When you consider something wrong but don't do anything yourself and help others who would do the wrong thing, you are waffling. The poll, if it really reflects the opinions of those listed, is disturbing. Still, it does not matter unless someone can explain how they will be prohibited from continuing to use GPL2. If they really don't mind people Tivoising their work, why don't they just BSD it and let everyone bork the user straight up?

Re:Let the free market handle it not the license..

[Znork]

"If a manufacturer creates hardware that limits a person's ability to modify the software that runs on it"

Then he can do that. With his own code. Not with mine.

"then let the market forces apply pressure"

Not being free to use other peoples GPLv3 licensed code is market pressure.

Quid pro quo. It really aint that hard to grasp. If you want the freedom, then you have to pass that freedom on.

RMS didn't change

[nuggz]

This is just unfair to RMS his objectives haven't changed.

GNU the GPL and the FSF exist because he wanted software to be distributed and used in that way, so he did it and encouraged wider participation.
The Free software movement has been very successful.

Now what is happening is some loopholes in the implementation of RMSs vision have been exploited, he obviously wants to correct this.

The only reason these people worked together is that the different visions could agree on a single implementation at that time. That time is past and the different visions no longer agree on the correct implementation.

For RMS to move forward in accordance with his vision he will have to create a new implementation that won't have the large mass of current users. He doesn't want to do this because many won't move, but he will have to in order to move forward.

I guess that settles it

[dtfinch]

Of 29 of the top developers, 28 are opposed to the GPL3, and the other 1 doesn't care either way. And that's not counting whether they want to switch to it, but just whether or not they like it.

I never would have expected such a landslide.

It's not that simple

[YA_Python_dev]

Because of this we will see a lot of projects stay on v2, with a few (and maybe an increasing number) go to v3. But why is this a problem? I think split licences are a good thing in this context, because I support freedom of choice. That's what we're here for in the first place isn't it? More choice is better.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. If I write a program and release it under GPLv2-only (which is probably a bad idea in the first place IMO, but it's what Linus did) and I use a library released under the "GPLv2 or any later version" and the new version of the library is released under the GPLv3 ("or any later version"), then I have to make a choice because the GPLv2-only is incompatible with the GPLv3:

• I can stop entirely using that library (this requires writing new code);
• I can continue using the old version of the library (this may requires duplicate work to fix bugs which are already fixed in the new version);
• I can change my license from GPLv2-only to "GPLv2 or any later version" or "GPLv3 or any later version" (this is the most logical solution, that's why everyone want to make sure that the GPLv3 is very good or is not released at all: if it's released everyone will probably have a lot of reasons/pressure to switch).

Disclaimer: I really like the GPLv3 because it garantees (even better than the GPLv2 that had some loopholes) that my software will be Free for everyone to modify and reuse, forever.

You don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

People who choose the GPL license (or at least the people who drafted the GPL license!) regard it as an ESSENTIAL FREEDOM FOR END USERS OF THE SOFTWARE that they should be allowed to change it and run the changed versions instead of the original version.

If hardware vendors are allowed to take GPL'd code, make changes and release their changes but PREVENT END USERS FROM MAKING ANY MODIFIED VERSIONS OF THEIR OWN that run on the hardware, then the hardware vendors are able to TAKE AWAY the essential freedom mentioned above.

Because, the software ONLY runs on one piece of hardware---the Tivo, for example---and that hardware REFUSES to run modified versions on equal terms with the version produced by the hardware vendor.

Source code is not much use without a system to run it on. Don't you think that requiring users to rewrite large parts of the software just to get it running on *some other* hardware so that they can enjoy the ESSENTIAL FREEDOM the GPL was supposed to guarantee them, is a bit much?

Freedom given to me must be balanced against freedom given to you. Put another way, a lot of the freedoms a person may have can not be exercised without trampling the freedoms of other people. The BSD license refuses to address this, and lets receivers of the code do whatever they want with it. The GPL license tries to strike a balance between developers, modifiers and end users and tries to ensure that freedoms are preserved for all of them. If you're willing to let a hardware vendor subvert that, maybe you should be using a different license, since allowing them to subvert it was never part of the intention of the GPL.

P.S. there are an extreme number of ignorant and trollish comments on this article. Maybe some of you should learn a bit about Stallman and the FSF and their point of view, before you attack them ad-hominem.