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.

Comments

Re:A simpler explanation

[ClosedSource]

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.

Re:A simpler explanation

[Aladrin]

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."

Re:The GPL3 process is not closed

[mrchaotica]

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.).

No, it's not, and you aren't making any sense.

[mrchaotica]

(You might argue that Linux is totalitarian too, but besides the point that it isnt, you can fork Linux if you think you can do better, while you cannot fork the FSF license creation process. That's why it's so scary.)

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").

Re:The GPL3 process is not closed

[mrchaotica]

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.

Two Cases

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Please explain how a license can "crumble".

Two situations. First, one can have the ability to see and modify source code, but not run the program. Case in point, hardware that will only run signed binaries. Sure, you can look at the source code for your CCTV system, TiVo, etc, but you will never be able to upgrade your own devices code without the hardware keys from the vendor.

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.

Re:Two Cases

[ray-auch]

Two situations. First, one can have the ability to see and modify source code, but not run the program. Case in

Been that way since the 80s. Nothing new. Nothing crumbled as a result.

Second, ability to run the program, but not see the source code.

Ditto.

Back almost two decades ago in college I used plenty of GNU software.

In some cases, we had access to the source, but on the machines on which that software ran, I had nowhere near enough disk quota to rebuild a modified version, let alone install and run it. In some cases the programs we had access to were modified from the GNU source, and the full modified source was not made available.

From my experience at that time, this sort of setup was very common in academia, which was typically where you found GNU software then.

The GPL didn't noticably crumble as a result, and in fact its use has expanded massively since then.

Why ? Because we still had the freedom to look at the source and learn from it, take the source (get the original unmodified source in case 2), modify it to our hearts content, and run it somewhere else. So we did.

I was able in '92 to take a whole set of development tools and applications off a big proprietary Unix box and build/port them onto a Linux PC, which I then used as primary PC for almost ten years. That is the freedom GPL gives, No way could I have done that with proprietary apps.

To follow your logic, any system on which GPL software is installed must grant all users full admin rights to allow them to modify it _in_ _place_ (and therefore you could never use GPL software burned into ROM).

RMS might think that giving everyone root everywhere is the right thing to do, but outside of MIT, in the real world, it is totally impractical. Lots of people definitely _won't_ use GPLv3 software if that is what it means.

Re:Two Cases

[ray-auch]

No. He thinks that the people who BOUGHT AND LEGALLY OWN THE HARDWARE deserve to be "root".


Well, why doesn't he _say_ that in the GPLv3 then ?

The word OWN does not appear in it except referring to "their own keys" and "ther own removal", nor does "owner" or "bought" "sell" or "purchase".

What it does say is this:

Some computers are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them. This is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom to change the software. Therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will not be restricted in this way.

It is very clearly about USERS and not OWNERS.

The rest of the licence backs this up - anyone you "convey" the work to has to have full source including all keys, and "convey" is defined in terms of third parties making or receiving copies of the work, nothing about ownership vs. rental.

So, either
1. RMS can't get what he thinks expressed properly in the GPL
or
2. he doesn't think what you think he does.

Given his past writings on the subject of (non owner) users having root access (info su, or google "GNU su support wheel" or similar), (2) is most likely by far.

Re:The GPL3 process is not closed

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

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.

their differences are simple

[CoughDropAddict]

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.

Malignorance

[0xABADC0DA]

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?

Even simpler

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:So what does Linus really want?

[Curien]

I can't tell you what Linus is thinking, but I can tell you why I think that way.

I am a programmer. I am not a tinkerer. I care about /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.

The ability to tinker with a system just isn't that important to me. It's the ability to /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.

Re:This makes sense. He's a developer at heart.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

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.

None of us, even Debian developers, enjoy dealing with legal issues. We do it because not doing so is short-sighted. IMHO, Linus often fails to understand the full scope of a non-technical problem, and when challenged, he uses "I'm apolitical" as an excuse to remain ignorant.

Linus is a decent programmer and a mediocre project manager. He's not a visionary, and I think his relevance has peaked or will soon do so. For the FSF, on the other hand, it's only the beginning. Linus is probably disappointed because the FSF won't cater to him or change its goals to suit his needs (see his complaint about the FSF not giving him early access to the first draft of GPLv3), but frankly I couldn't care less if the FSF just ignored him altogether.

Re:This makes sense. He's a developer at heart.

[ClamIAm]

He'd rather be coding or debugging than getting involved in legal debate.

Then why is he continually debating the legalese of the GPL3 draft? To me, it sounds more like he wants to be "right" but doesn't want to do anything that could put him in a position to look stupid. See also: pretty much every debate Linus gets involved in.

Re:So what does Linus really want?

[killjoe]

Linus just doesn't care all that much. He hasn't learned the proper lesson from the bitkeeper incident yet apparently.