Slashdot Mirror
Why Torvalds is Sitting out the GPLv3 Process
lisah writes "Linus Torvalds has a lot of reasons for not wanting to participate in drafting the third version of the GNU General Public License (GPL): He doesn't like meetings, says committees don't make sense, has philosophical differences with the Free Software Foundation, and seems to be generally distrustful of the whole drafting process. Though Torvalds prefers the GPLv2, he says if others prefer the GPLv3, they ought to support it because 'it's not like it kills and eats small children for breakfast, and must never be allowed.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
At heart, he's a developer. He'd rather be coding or debugging than getting involved in legal debate. And that's a good thing for us. I'd much rather him spend an hour working on Linux than disputing some clause of some license. It's just a more productive use of his time.
I think that's part of the reason, but he also understands his high profile and doesn't want the process to be more "legitimized" through his involvement when he thinks the basic outcome was predetermined.
That's obviously correct as far as it goes, but think about open source licensing for a moment. Can you think of anyone who is not fanatical about the license they picked? I know I am. At least if not the exact license, then the spirit of that license.
LT has made it pretty clear that the spirit of the GPL v3 is not the same as the v2 to him, and that's his objection. I definitely agree with that, even though I strongly dislike the v2 as well.
I suspect the real reason he has dropped out of the conversation is because he has no interest whatsoever in the direction of the v3 and the FSF has made it VERY clear that they have no intent on changing the parts he hates. It doesn't help him or them 1 iota to stay, so he left. Smart man.
"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The GPLv2 is old and out of date and though it still works today, will start to crumble in a few years.
The rest of your points I'd tend to agree with, but I'm not sure what you mean by the one above.
Considering how Sun and Microsoft have been making a mess of 'open' licences lately, the main reason I can think of for continuing to use v2 is that it is stable. It is a known quantity, and everyone (within certain circles obviously) is aware of what they can do with it. I can't see how time would 'age' a licence really.
More and more people will start exploiting the loopholes in GPL v.2 (e.g. apps as web servies, so they're not technically "distributed" to the users, TiVo-esque locking of hardware to use only the company's version of the program, etc.).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Your analogy makes no sense.
Forking the FSF license creation process is not like forking Linux; it would be like forking the Linux development model, which is equally impossible.
Forking Linux would be like forking the GPL itself, which is not only possible, but trivially easy: all you have to do is re-write it however you like, and rename it (e.g., "ACPL," for "Anonymous Coward's Public License").
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yes engineers wants to do their job well. And the quote "They don't care so much about the political undercurrents of the organization" is typical of engineers. But engineers gotta realize in order to make a decision for the larger group (not just themselves), these processes has to occur. I wouldn't even call such a thing as 'necessary evil', because afterall, it is really just a process to get this done with consensus, unlike design of a subsystem, architecture of a software, which may only require agreement of a handful of people.
The GPL was designed by the Free Software Foundation, and they made it very clear what they intended (in the GNU manifesto, etc.). By that standard, the loopholes are bugs.
In other words, the FSF's opinion is the only one that matters because it's their license. If you don't like it, use a different one or make your own. And if you already chose to use it (with the "...or later" clause), you had ample oppertunity to understand what you were getting into before you did it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Second, ability to run the program, but not see the source code. Case in point, Google. It is beyond question that Google are using all kinds of GPL applications, from the kernel to webservers to highly modified filesystem drivers. All of it GPLed and none of the code available for you to see, despite the fact that Google allow you to use all these services online, you'll never see a line of the modified code.
Both these cases violate not the letter of the GPLv2 licence, but the spirit of it. That spirit being the ability to run the program, modify the source, and run the changed program. This is happening on small scales today. It could soon be happening on a huge scale, and that would undermine the whole FOSS community. GPLv3 will be needed in the future.
May the Maths Be with you!
The significant point about 'apps as web services' will also be a loophole in the GPLv3 and any future version. It it not an EULA and so can't dictate what you do with the code once you have it.
If you are only running a web service and not distributing anything then you don't need to compliy with the GPL whatever it or any future version says.
I recognize the importance of software licenses, especially the GPL, but I've come to the inescapable conclusion that many of the major players in OSS have an insatiable need to spend enormous amounts of time bickering about licensing minutiae.
Every week brings a new drama-bomb in the endless pissing contests and personal rivalries/vendettas. If half the energy expended to one up, or argue with another developer was put into the development process, an untold number of projects might be a bit further along. One thing you can say about closed-source software is that the financial pressures end up stifling a great deal of the petty childishness that seems to pervade the OSS community, and taints its image in the process.
Don't get me wrong, you still get this sort of crap on the closed-source side of things - "I don't want to use your standard...I want to reinvent the wheel for this app..." etc, but it's not at the forefront. Human nature dictates that you will find these problems everywhere, but in the corporate, closed-source enviroment, it comes down to one conclusion - eventually the project needs to get done.
If OSS wants to gain more acceptance, it needs to put this sort of thing aside and get back to the core issue - it's the code, dammit. None of the present issues with the community are insurmountable, but direct action needs to be taken, these problems are not going to going away on their own. Rampant egoism, Not Invented Here Syndrome, coder-centric, not user-centric development methodologies...these all slow the pace of progress and paint open source in a very bad light.
OSS has a large community of smart people, and I just think it can do a whole lot better.
Using a web service is essentially viewing the output of a piece of software. Attaching licensing to the output of Free Software is, IMHO a really BAD idea. The source to go with the binary is one thing, requiring the source when the output is distributed is another altogether.
They should leave it as it is. It works in a perfectly satisfactory way already. If it isn't broken..
I think Linus's difference with the FSF is quite simple.
The FSF is concerned with users. The whole thing started when Richard Stallman couldn't fix the printer driver that he was a user of. The FSF's goal is to ensure that everyone who uses software, ever, has the technical and legal right to modify the software they are using.
Linus seems more concerned with developers. If someone comes along and contributes some sweet code to the Linux kernel, he thinks it's only fair that any developer gets the opportunity to use that code too, in their own project. But he's not concerned that an end user can't install a modified version of Linux on their Tivo.
Linus has such a dislike for the FSF that he rants on these things that he doesn't even know about and what's worse, uses his position to spread his ignorance like a cancer, a malignant ignorance. Consider that he did not even know the 'meetings' took place over email and IRC. Or his repeated claims of having to give up his private key, which is shown wrong over and over by legal experts. Or saying committees don't take responsibility for decisions and then complaining that they didn't just blindly agree to whatever his kernel developers wanted.
What's interesting to me is when Torvolds says the GPL2 is where companies and open source people can meet in perfect harmony, as if companies like the GPL2. No company likes the prospect of having to open up their product because some 'tard put in GPL code without their knowledge. They put up with it because they have to, because it's a reality they can't escape. I know I have had many heated arguments about making code GPL when others on a project wanted BSD to be more 'corporate friendly'. Perfect harmony? Wtf world is he living in? Use GPLv3 and they will come and work with that too (even though they don't want to) and for the same reasons.
I think the real question is, as an open-source developer, why wouldn't you choose GPLv3 over v2? Because you want some company to use your program and then sue you because you made use of their patents? Or you want your software to make DRM devices cheaper to create? Or you want your license to be worded in a way that is ambiguous in some regions? I wonder why Linus wants linux to be licensed without patent protections, with ambiguous language, and in a way that supports DRM?
As an engineer at heart, he understands computers and software systems very well, but likely avoids and despises legal systems.
Or, put simpler: I think he simply doesn't understand it. And yes, I know that sounds arrogant, but if you remember his posts on Groklaw, he demonstrated again and again that he thought the GPLv3 demanded things that it didn't, and that he had completely missed the point of what it's actually trying to do. For instance, he actually brought out that old FUD about how disabling DRM will prevent certain security measures, which it doesn't.
I don't think Linus and PJ actually disagree, but I do think PJ actually knows her stuff, and Linus should stick to the actual coding, organizing, and benevolent dictating of the kernel itself.
That, or sometime fairly soon, we're going to actually squeeze a statement from Linus that, given the choice, he'd go with BSD or public domain. They seem more in line with his ideals.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I can't tell you what Linus is thinking, but I can tell you why I think that way.
/seeing the code/. I care that I can then use that code (or more likely ideas and tricks from that code) in my own projects. I don't care about making my consumer-grade router outpace the Cisco gear I use at work. I care about being able to make my own software on par with IOS.
/learn/ from that system that I want. Yes, learning could perhaps be easier if I could run modified code on the device, but ultimately, simply having access to the source is what I really care about.
I am a programmer. I am not a tinkerer. I care about
The ability to tinker with a system just isn't that important to me. It's the ability to
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
It's true. Engineers, scientists, programmers, mathmeticians, etc, would rather engineer than participate in meetings and organizational politics. Often, this is accompanied by an inability to play well with others--which I suspect is the case in this instance.
There are so many cases on the record where LT beats a hasty retreat after his arguments are demonstrated to have poor logic. Let's hope LT learns to moderate his penchant for hyperbole. Let's all be glad he codes better than he discusses policy.
But you still need a device to run the code on. Consider the fact that in many cases (especially embedded) there isn't a good substitute device. What good does having the code do you in this case? What benefit do you get out of the GPL that you wouldn't get out of, say, MS's "shared source" licenses?
More importantly, why should the hardware device maker get the benefit of the GPL for themselves, without having to give back? I mean, let's assume you like the GPL in the first place. In that case, you already belive it's reasonable to require software writers to open the code they write that's combined with GPL code, because being able to use the combined whole is the point. So, similarly, isn't it reasonable to require hardware makers to open the hardware they make that's combined with GPL code, because using the combined whole is still the point?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm holding out for the kills small children and eats them for lunch license.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
Are you trolling, or are you really that daft? If RMS felt so inclined, he could release a GPLv3 that isn't free in the least. Perhaps, one that doesn't require the source of released derivative works binaries to be released. Suddenly, the people who put in the hard work get the shaft. Isn't one of the goals of free software to be a lack of such a central figure? I know the intentions look and sound good, but entrusting one man, one board, or any other unit of people with the ability to make arbitrary changes to the licence of software he/they had no part in creating is NOT a good idea.
Torvalds's decision to remove that clause is probably one of the best he made in the relicensing move.
I keep going over and over this, and I still can't figure out why Linus would want Linux to be able to be Tivo-ized, but not want it BSD-licensed. Can you explain to me what it is about these specific loopholes that makes them so much more desirable than people taking your code wholesale and making it into a proprietary program?
With GPLv2, people who take your code and alter it have to publish the alterations. This adds to the store of knowledge generally available to the human race. Good ideas that improve your code can be incorporated into your own project or into others. This doesn't happen with a BSD license.
And again, the problem is that there may not be a substitute device. That is, there could be amazing, incredible innovation in some GPL'd code, that would be utterly useless to you without an open mp3 player. Now, that case is actually irrelevant now -- there's a player that encourages rockbox, and you can make Linux run on an iPod -- but it's still a valid point.
If you look at your history, I think RMS will back me up here. The whole free software movement was inspired by a printer driver without source code -- not because RMS particularly wanted to see how it worked, but because it didn't work, and he wanted to fix it.
Alright, then. I still think it's asinine of people to lock down a device so I can't run custom software on it. It is their right to develop such a device, but I do not want to help them, so I don't think it's their right to use my code in such a device.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Linus, you're never going to have a successful career in politics with an attitude like that.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
I would have said the same thing, until I read the interview that I linked to in the parent's parent of this post. Here's quotes from RMS from that interview (note I am quoting his complete answers, not picking and choosing words). This makes it completely clear that he is against businesses and corporations having power, and that the Free Source movement is just one aspect of that larger anti-corporation movement. As an aside, I am quite impressed with the clarity and precision with which RMS speaks. He leaves no doubt where he stands, what his goals are, and how he intends to pursue them.
I suppose you could pick nits here and say that being against corporations having power is not anti-corporation. But, come on. Let's use words that are meaningful, not spin them.
Linus just doesn't care all that much. He hasn't learned the proper lesson from the bitkeeper incident yet apparently.
evil is as evil does
What is stopping you compiling it and running it ?
Your hardware doesn't run (by design) programs that you compile ?
Well, get some that does then. Why did you get non-user-modifiable hardware if you wanted to modify it ?
I can't modify the software on (for one example) my phone, do I care ? no. Because if I _wanted_ to modify it, I'd have bought a phone which supported me modifying it.
You can take every modification Tivo has made to GPL software and use it in your own PVR (or in something completely different) - even compete with Tivo if you wish, and even if you eat their lunch in the marketplace, they _still_ have to give you every improvement they make to the GPL software. You can benefit from _all_ their GPL software R&D, for free.
Provided, of course, that you reciprocate, so they benefit from all yours too (_that_ is the core of the GPL - nothing to do with hardware).
So, why is this code not useful ? It isn't useful to me, as I don't want to build a PVR, but there's loads of GPL code that I have no use for - that doesn't mean it isn't useful.
Let's see now, how long was it since Theo was featured on slashdot begging for money to keep OpenBSD running, using OpenSSH as hostage? I don't know about FreeBSD, but I haven't got the impression it's very popular either. Why Apple is successful is for completely other reasons than BSD. They could have licensed the AIX kernel, the Solaris kernel or any other kernel, gotten the very few pieces of drivers they need working and be done. You might as well count the BSD licensed code shipped with Windows them if you want to count that way. Apache is the one I'll give you, impressive marketshare. Mozilla started out with a lot of historical luggage, has a GPL-compatible license and probably shouldn't be GPL anyway because of the plug-ins. And MySQL is far more popular than PostgreSQL. So overall, while it means that license isn't everything and there's the odd exception, it seems to be that most successful open source projects are using the GPL, and where competing the GPL project is usually more popular.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That doesn't make any sense unless you selectively interpret it to fit what you want it to. There's no Freedom guaranteeing that a modified program will run on the original hardware. For one thing, the modified code might be buggy. For another, it might be too large. For a third, the hardware might be buggy.
Running modified code on the original hardware is convenient. It's probably what you want to do. It might even have been your inital goal. But calling it a "freedom" is just silly.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
I don't buy it. The only examples I can think of are Linux vs. BSD and MySQL vs. PostgreSQL. In both cases, there are a lot of other reasons that might explain why the GPLed one's popularity. Mostly historical, I think - the AT&T lawsuit slowed down BSD adoption, and supposedly PostgreSQL used to be a lot slower and harder to use. The PHP people focusing exclusively on MySQL really made its popularity grow.
You can't lose what you never had.
Linux came in right at that time to steal what could have been BSD's thunder.
BSD was technically superior long after the lawsuit had been resolved and when Linux was still in its early growth stages. BSD could have easily become the dominant open source operating system.
And Solaris is a straw man. SunsOS 4.x and older was BSD based. [...] As for SunOS 5.x, which is more commonly refered to Solaris, is Sys V Rel 3 based.
I fail to see your point. How does Sun changing directions mid-stream turn them into a BSD contributor? And, in any case, being SVR4-"based" doesn't mean they stopped using BSD code.
"Sun didn't make many meaningful contributions to BSD" And what NFS, NIS, etc are nothing?
How exactly do you think Sun "contributed" NFS to BSD? The FreeBSD NFS files, for example, do not have any Sun copyrights. And FreeBSD NIS only seems to have some Sun header files, needed for compatibility. There may or may not be some SunRPC and XDR code in FreeBSD. But NFS, NIS, RPC, and XDR are such shitty standards that any contribution of them was more self-serving than helpful.
This may be true with all methods of machine counts that you're aware of, but that's the ludicrous statement of a luddite to claim that no machine count can ever be trusted. Humans are much more easily bribed and manipulated than machines. Humans from both parties.
It costs more money, though, and it does take some amount of time more. That said, I was pretty annoyed that Kerry conceded before the votes were actually counted.
Quick Google search shows population of Australia to be 20,090,437. Population of US is 295,734,134. That's a significant difference. Now, if I could find out how many actual votes were cast...
Which is also thousands of opportunities to make mistakes, intentional or not.
Oh, I agree, but it would be nice if we could have neither the delay nor the fraud.
Aside from the sheer cost, time, number of volunteers, and potential innaccuracy... No, I don't think electronic voting is wholly uncalled for. I do think that I don't know strong enough words for the level of negligence with which the US has treated voting in general -- from the chads and the butterfly ballot to the Diebold machines.
It's been said over and over again -- we treat our electronic slot machines and poker machines with much more scrutiny than we treat our voting machines. Frankly, I'd feel better trying to win the jackpot from a slot machine than simply trying to have my vote counted by a Diebold machine.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!