Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Torvalds "Pretty Pleased" With Latest GPLv3

Posted by kdawson on from the with-sugar-on-top dept.

Novus Ordo Seclorum writes "According to CNet, Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft. He said, 'Unlike the earlier drafts, it at least seems to not sully the good name of the GPL any more.' After his earlier criticism, some had questioned whether such controversies would lead to rifts in the community, especially if the kernel ended up under a different license than the GNU tools. But with the latest revisions, Linus will entertain moving the kernel over to the GPL v3."

64 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting.. by xENoLocO · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and this whole time I was losing sleep on whether linus would be pleased.

    Slow news day? :)

    --
    "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    1. Re:Interesting.. by itsdapead · · Score: 4, Informative

      Slow news day? :)

      No, vitally important news for the future of the free/open source software movement day.

      The linux kernel is pretty important to (duh) most linux distributions. However, so is a load of Free Software Foundation-controlled stuff, not least the compilers, make tools, standard C libraries, and shedloads of userland utilities from the "ls" command through to EMACS... plus the GPL license itself. If the two factions fall out then it can only be bad for Linux and other FOSS.

      Slighty satirized and only approximately true capsule summary of the problem:

      The FSF wants - quite badly - to move to the GPLv3 to prevent "TiVOization" (using GPL code in a hardware device but with DRM-type tricks that stops users changing the code) and, more recently, to stop future Novell/Microsoft FUD campaigns.

      Linus and other linux kernel contributors want - quite badly - to keep the GPLv2 because:

      1. if it ain't broke, don't fix it;
      2. TiVO etc. may be irksome but isn't worth the risk of "fixing" the GPLv2 (as programmers they understand this!)
      3. Did we mention "If it aint broke, don't fix it"?
      4. Previous drafts of the GPLv3 contained scary-sounding clauses about patents and use of encryption that, whatever their intention or precise legal meaning, would have had commercial GPL users running for the long grass.
      5. Unlike FSF, "Linux" doesn't ask contributors to hand over copyright - so while FSF can change the license for the next version of gcc at the stroke of a pen, "Linux" can't change the license on the kernel without getting approval from hundreds of people, some of whom have inevitably emmigrated, died, gone to jail or, tragically, got jobs at Microsoft.
      6. "Look, I was up burning the midday oil the other week because I decided to 'just fix' some code that wasn't really that broken so, take it from me, if it ain't seriously broke don't fix it!"

      The pro-FSF lobby countered these concerns with:

      1. Trust us, we're lawyers and academics
      2. Feel free to comment on the detailed wording but we're not changing our mind about the principles
      3. If you're against GPLv3 you must be for software patents and TiVOization

      At which point ISTR Linus (or someone claiming to be he) said a Bad Word on Groklaw and PJ made him go and stand in the Naughty Corner until he had learned to control his potty mouth :-)

      Then when the new draft of the GPLv3 appears it turns out that although the FSF have stuck to their guns they have been listening and have done some substantial re-drafting.

      If Linus and the FSF are talking nicely again it can only be good news - even if Groklaw's swear box takings go down.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    2. Re:Interesting.. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's a pretty slanted view of what happened.

      The FSF's issues concerned more than just TiVo, software patents were another major issue. Fundamentally though, the main issue is that there's a lot of licensing forking going on. The GPL is broken. If it wasn't, the MPL, CDDL, and custom licenses for projects like Apache, wouldn't exist.

      And the biggest problem with multiple copyleft licenses is that it undermines software freedom. If you can't mix code from one free software project in another, then how are they both "free"?

      Critics of the FSF countered that this was all the GPLs fault, because, erm, it's copyleft and the others are n... well, erm, the problem is copyleft, and the GPL invented that, and nobody else wante... oh wait, well, er, RMS is a dirty smelly hippy! Yeah!

      The FSF recognized there is an issue, and went forward and tried to create a set of licenses (it's important to note that both the GPL and LGPL are being modified here) that anyone who believes in free software could find common ground with.

      Whereupon Torvalds threw a fit, because he'd fucked up. Seriously fucked up. Early on in Linux development, he settled on the GPLv2, but didn't like one commonly included licensing mechanism, the ability to use future versions of the GPL. By itself, that's fine, trusting a third party to always put out fair licenses is a massive mistake, but where Torvalds screwed up was in not replacing it. He just took it out. It's like seeing:

      i = int_add_function(i, 1);

      in some code, and deciding that it sucks, and it's hideous, and it's really going to have side effects and stuff that are unpredictable, and God knows why someone would put it in, and deciding to remove the damned line instead of replacing it with "i++;"

      Essentially Torvalds replaced a clause allowing for future upgrades with nothing whatsoever, which means that it's going to be very, very, very hard indeed to ever upgrade the license of the Linux kernel, no matter how necessary.

      So he made up some spurious complaints about the draft. They were nonsense. In some cases his complaints were even that it was somehow a violation of the spirit of the GPL to outlaw ways of making it illegal to modify software (such as use of the DMCA.) The FSF has had to seriously water down one important clause, and rewrite another so it's obvious even to a anti-FSF zealot that Torvalds was full of shit.

      After the revision, even Linus has realized that he's going to be laughed at if he makes the same complaints, so now he's trying to look magnanimous while simultaneously dissing it. Yes, contrary to the headline, he's saying he still doesn't like it.

      Meanwhile, the rest of the free software (and open source) communities look on with amazement and sadness. Looks like there's less chance than ever of us settling on common hard-copyleft and soft-copyleft licenses for software we feel should be copylefted. Instead it's more likely that GPLv3 will just add to the mess of licenses that aren't compatible with other licenses.

      And if Torvalds had just said from the start, "Hey guys, great idea and everything, but just to let you know, I fucked up with the Linux kernel licensing so it's not going to happen with my project", the project itself may, instead of being compromised by the FSF jumping through hoops to satisfy one egomaniac with no great interest in the free software movement to begin with, be the universal set of licenses we wanted to begin with.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Interesting.. by raddan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The question is, if the FSF decides to take a hard stance on this and move their entire toolchain, utilities, and apps to the GPLv3, will their developer base follow them? I personally wouldn't see a reason to, and if I had a FSF-owned project, I would most certainly fork it.

    4. Re:Interesting.. by marcosdumay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The pro-FSF lobby countered these concerns with:

      1. Trust us, we're lawyers and academics
      2. Feel free to comment on the detailed wording but we're not changing our mind about the principles
      3. If you're against GPLv3 you must be for software patents and TiVOization"

      Let's not forget the FSF style concern 0:

      0. It IS broken.

      --
      Rethinking email
    5. Re:Interesting.. by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the biggest problem with multiple copyleft licenses is that it undermines software freedom. If you can't mix code from one free software project in another, then how are they both "free"?
      Critics of the FSF countered that this was all the GPLs fault, because, erm, it's copyleft and the others are n... well, erm, the problem is copyleft, and the GPL invented that, and nobody else wante... oh wait, well, er, RMS is a dirty smelly hippy! Yeah!


      Are you seriously suggesting that all objections to the GPL are groundless and that all other licenses are somehow undermining 'software freedom' (What does that mean exactly?), because they aren't part of the one true way? Personally I'd release under MIT/BSD over GPL, because it is truly free of any restrictions, but still copyright the author, so it can be used by the world for any purpose as the author intended. Just because the GPL doesn't allow that doesn't mean it's not something people want to do.

      A fair case could be made for the GPL being unfree in that it excludes all other licenses. Akin to monotheism's insistence that you shall not worship other gods.

      Whereupon Torvalds threw a fit, because he'd fucked up. Seriously fucked up. Early on in Linux development, he settled on the GPLv2, but didn't like one commonly included licensing mechanism, the ability to use future versions of the GPL. By itself, that's fine, trusting a third party to always put out fair licenses is a massive mistake, but where Torvalds screwed up was in not replacing it. He just took it out. It's like seeing:
      i = int_add_function(i, 1);
      in some code, and deciding that it sucks, and it's hideous, and it's really going to have side effects and stuff that are unpredictable, and God knows why someone would put it in, and deciding to remove the damned line instead of replacing it with "i++;"


      Your analogy assumes he disagreed with the implementation, but not the intent (if indeed it makes any sense at all?). In fact he disagreed with the intent, and therefore removed the clause.

      As to the clause in question "or any other version" - this is a contentious clause, I'm not surprised he took it out. Why would anyone possibly agree to be bound by any and all future conditions that they haven't even seen; you may as well say "or any other license the maintainer chooses in the future". I doubt that clause is even legally binding. On a project with multiple contributors who retain copyright, you'll always have to go back to them to ask about changes - similar to a change of terms and conditions from your bank; they have to notify you in writing of changes. If anything the only mistake Linus made was not to set up a foundation and assign copyright to that - an understandable oversight when starting out, and one which they may start to slowly remedy.

      Meanwhile, the rest of the free software (and open source) communities look on with amazement and sadness. Looks like there's less chance than ever of us settling on common hard-copyleft and soft-copyleft licenses for software we feel should be copylefted. Instead it's more likely that GPLv3 will just add to the mess of licenses that aren't compatible with other licenses.


      Who are 'the free software community' and why do you presume to speak for them?

      People will vote with their feet- if GPLv3 is truly the one pure license as you seem to believe, they'll choose it. I personally don't see any problem with a proliferation of licenses - the bad ones will be weeded out by natural selection. If you don't like using the Linux kernel and truly think the maintainer is an egomaniac, go start your own instead of gratuitously insulting the man who maintains it. Perhaps you could contribute to and use HURD instead?
    6. Re:Interesting.. by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't seem to understand how the GPL2 "or, at your option, a later version" clause works. If Linus were to have licensed the kernel under a "GPL2 or, at your option, the yet to be created Linus Public Licenses to be created by Linus Torvalds", then the second Linus started selling copies of Linux under his LPL v1--which allows companies to not distributing source--*anyone* could fork the current code base under the GPL2 *only* and take away Linus' "dictatorship" over the kernel. Would this be a large upset to the kernel community? Of course--just as would be true if Linus decided to take all the "GPL2 or at your option, later version code" and work to form a GPL3 kernel; no matter what the license change or possibly even the *lack* of a license change will motivate forks, as forks of the Linux kernel are happening all the time.

      Your position is about as silly as believing that if Microsoft bought out the Mozilla Foundation tomorrow and relicensed all the code under a closed license (assuming they could) that (a) people would continue to support and use Mozilla Firefox and ilk as if nothing had happened and (b) that no one would fork the existing code base and try to lure the disillusioned community to create a mechanism to further decrease the chances of such happening again.

      Yes, there's certainly a great bit of room to argue that allowing the FSF to retain control over possible future Linux licensing is bad, but the wording of the license won't magical dissolve the current license on current code. The real beauty of free software isn't the direct effect of so much GPL source being available; it's that so much GPL source being available, and a license that exists to continue that source to be GPL, motivates people to build communities to ever further work the useful and usable into something that will evolve with the needs of developers and users; except in things like very simple appliances, unmodified code stagnates to the point of disuse.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    7. Re:Interesting.. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting


      I think parent's question is why the FSF assumes that everybody who has written a GNU utility and assigned it to the FSF necessarily agrees with the FSF on everything including the revised GPLv3.

      I suspect at least a few utility developers agree with Linus that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it - and especially don't fix it in braindead ways".

      Since the FSF seems to want to cripple one of the five major Linux distros (SUSE) to "punish" Novell for making a pointless and irrelevant deal with Microsoft (which is unlikely to have ANY significant effect on Linux, OSS OR "free" software now or in the future), it would be amusing if they decided to go that route - and then discovered that half their developers refused to support the FSF anymore, thus damaging the GNU utilities suite's ability to be moved to GPLv3. (I may be wrong, however, in that I think the FSF has full control over all utilities written under their banner, unlike Linux where the individual parts are not so assigned.)

      In any event, the willingness to damage one of the major corporate-supported Linux distros merely to "punish" Novell clearly shows the fanaticism of the FSF and Stallman in particular.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    8. Re:Interesting.. by doti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Both are just trying to stand up for their ideals. Stallman is standing up for his ideals. Linus has no ideals whatsoever, he just want things to work, and doesn't give a rat ass about the so called ideals.

      In other words, Stallman is a visionary. Linus is just a great engineer.
      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    9. Re:Interesting.. by raddan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Having volunteered many hours of my time to the FSF, I can say that I'm no stranger to them, and I think GNU has contributed immensely to the goal of software freedom. I think that making Free Software a "movement" was a good idea, and it attracted many people, like myself, who think that we should remove artifical barriers to computation. However, I feel that with the GPLv3, the FSF has strayed from their goal. Let's face it, the GPLv3 puts more restrictions on what you can do with software, not fewer. I am of the opinion that once a piece of software is written, it shouldn't have to be rewritten except to improve or adapt it. GPLv3 forces certain people to rewrite because they aren't ideologically aligned with the FSF.

      When I write a piece of software, I want it to be free. That's why I don't use the GPL anymore, and that's why I won't be using the GPLv3 in the future. Presently, I use the ISC license and the WTFPL.

    10. Re:Interesting.. by init100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wondered when you would show up.

      If someone wants to use a new license that he doesn't like then somehow attempts to wrangle control from him so that it could be used

      We've been though this before. I don't agree that GPLv3 userspace software running on top of a GPLv2 kernel will "wrangle control from him" or "add restrictions to the kernel".

      I don't think any of his complaints were based around the intended goals of the GPLv3 but the way they were implemented.

      On the contrary, I think it is pretty clear that he opposed the DRM part from the start, and that this microscopic softening w.r.t. GPLv3 is in part caused by a watering-down of that section. Preventing DRM to restrict the freedom of GPL-covered software was one of the primary goals, so I think it is quite wrong to claim that he only opposed the implementation.

      Linus isn't an idiot.

      I never said he was. He is a very fine engineer, but that does not make him a deity when it comes to legal matters.

      Linus had some good objections and had to spell out why v3 code as the license stood couldn't go into GPLv2 software.

      I don't think that GPLv3 code going into GPLv2 software is a high priority with the FSF. The important part is that GPLv2 code can go into GPLv3 software (except for code licensed as "GPLv2 only").

      If the license is written correctly,

      The word correctly is subjective in this context. What is the correct way to write the license to achieve one goal may be incorrect to achieve another goal.

      it could because the GPL says the future versions of the license needed to be in the same spirit of the GPL.

      I cannot see how GPLv3 code can go into GPLv2 code with anything else than effectively forcing the GPLv3 to become the GPLv2, and thus making it redundant. GPLv3 code will naturally close certain loopholes in the GPLv2, which will make it impossible for GPLv3 code to go into software where those license loopholes are still present.

    11. Re:Interesting.. by try_anything · · Score: 3, Informative

      the Trusted Computing Group is busy making every PC into a Tivo

      Aha! Thank you for making this connection for me. I was having trouble giving a damn about this whole issue, but now I see it makes a huge difference not just for consumer electronics but for the PC hardware I'm going to (be forced to) buy in the next five years. Companies that make hardware impossible to use from open software should not be allowed to leech off GPL'ed code to do so.

  2. Re:Bribed. by randomencounter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course there was negotiation, but I'm sure Linus paid for his own lunch.

    --
    Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
  3. Re:viral by rehabdoll · · Score: 5, Informative

    the gpl is not viral. Also, its just a license. If the copyright holder wants to he can relicense it to whatever he wants.

  4. Move over? by JanneM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nobody's requested transfer of copyright to any code in the kernel. For the kernel, in practical terms it has never mattered what Torvalds' thoughts on the GPL is, since they'd need individual permission from every contributor to do so (or rewrite the parts that get no permission or where the contributor or their estate recipients can no longer be found). It'd be the mess of mozilla licensing all over again, but even worse.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Move over? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Parts of the kernel are licensed "GPL version 2 or later" (which can roll over automatically), and a lot of the lines of code are owned by a few large companies. So you can get a large percentage of the code just by getting Red Hat, IBM, Intel, Novell, etc. on board. That's not all the code, but it would represent a substantial amount of the code without having to go "door to door" with the contributors.

  5. Re:viral by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think there's much chance of a Linux license change. Aside from the fact Linus isn't explicitly saying he thinks it's better than GPL2, there is the issue that the Linux kernel has too many copyright holders and no explicit mechanism to move to a new license beyond every single author agreeing.

    Some have proposed that perhaps everything written by people who cannot be contacted or who disagree with relicensing could simply be rewritten. I think they underestimate the impracticality of such a feat. You can't easily determine the copyrights of every single piece of code within Linux, and it strikes me that unless almost everyone who is contactable is agreeable to a license change, the amount of code that'll need to be rewritten is huge.

    As an aside, I think it's a shame that some of the stuff aiming to make the GPL more compatible with other licenses was struck out, especially the patent retaliation stuff. There was a very real effort to address reasons why others who generally agree with the principles of copyleft had eschewed GPL2, and that effort seems to be falling apart. I'm hoping this doesn't mean that instead of getting a license that almost everyone agrees upon, we end up with yet another incompatible license to add to the maze of incompatible licenses that, today, undermines the freedom of free software.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. Misleading summary? by penp · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you actually read the article, he specifies:

    "Whether it's actually a better license than the GPLv2, I'm still a bit skeptical, but at least it's now 'I'm skeptical' rather than 'Hell no!'" I just think the summary of this article is a bit misleading. It makes it sound like he's completely for switching to the GPLv3, when after reading the article I found he's still a bit skeptical.

    Torvalds was noncommittal about whether he might try to move the Linux kernel to GPL 3--a change that would require the permission not just of Torvalds but also of all other Linux kernel copyright holders. But he didn't rule it out. "The current draft makes me think it's at least a possibility in theory, but whether it's practical and worth it is a totally different thing," he said. "Practically speaking, it would involve a lot of work to make sure everything relevant is GPLv3-compatible even if we decided that the GPL 3 is OK."
    1. Re:Misleading summary? by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is it misleading? The summary says "But with the latest revisions, Linus will entertain moving the kernel over to the GPL v3" - which means pretty much what the quote of Linus you gave says, "The current draft makes me think it's at least a possibility in theory, but whether it's practical and worth it is a totally different thing."

      How are these significantly different?

  7. They have no idea.. by dgr73 · · Score: 4, Funny

    on how to get a Finn to see your point in negotiations. It's easy:

    1. Invite the Finn to a sauna that's been heated to a 120C

    2. Help him down a case of beer and 2 litres of vodka while enjoying the sauna for 4-5 hours

    If you are still able to make your case after this, you will find the Finn much more appreciative of your point of view.

  8. Re:Glad and relieved by GundamFan · · Score: 2, Informative

    He is a demigod in the community... If he doesn't like GPLv3 at all, and has a good reason, it is going to be a hard sell.

    --
    I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
    Mark Twain
  9. Most interesting scenario is Linux + Solaris by starseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While Linus Torvalds is not the sole copyright holder of the Linux kernel, it cannot be denied that an "official" project to shift the kernel from GPLv2 to GPLv3 would open up some interesting possibilities.

    One immediate question I would have is whether he would leave in the "or any later version" clause this time or remove it again. If he does that we might have to go through this whole mess again in another 15 years, but maybe that's the idea.

    Linux as GPL3 only becomes of true importance if OpenSolaris also becomes GPL3. If that is the case, there could be an immediate and dramatic improvement seen in both projects as the code starts to flow both ways. OpenSolaris could start to take advantage of the driver code in Linux (or at least, use it to make the code Solaris would need) and Linux could start working on goodies like Dtrace support. Mutually beneficial, and everyone wins.

    Of course, there is no reason beyond speculation to think Solaris will use GPL3. The situation is potentially very exciting, but it would require both Solaris and Linux to move from their current license and neither decision will be made lightly.

    Fingers crossed...

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    1. Re:Most interesting scenario is Linux + Solaris by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One immediate question I would have is whether he would leave in the "or any later version" clause this time or remove it again. If he does that we might have to go through this whole mess again in another 15 years, but maybe that's the idea.
      IMO, it doesn't make sense to leave in the "or any later version" clause unless you either ARE the FSF, or you trust the FSF completely. Linus clearly doesn't fit either of those two criteria.
    2. Re:Most interesting scenario is Linux + Solaris by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to trust the FSF completely, since even if they release a truly terrible new version of the GPL, the older ones can still be used. About the 'worst' thing the FSF could do would be to say that GPLv4 will be a permissive licence allowing anything.

      Unless you have strong feelings that the current version of the GPL is the only right one, it's an easier life for everyone to leave in the 'or any later version' language. I don't agree with everything the FSF does, and in particular I think that trying to retrospectively punish Novell for their patent deal with Microsoft is a bad idea, but in the wider interests of free software we should try to keep in step with the FSF and not have a proliferation of different GPL versions making code sharing awkward.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    3. Re:Most interesting scenario is Linux + Solaris by GrievousMistake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but that's exactly what you'd expect when you release as MIT.
      You presumably released as GPL to protect against just that kind of shit, but now you're screwed, because FSF in their infinite wisdom and benevolence booby-trapped their license to give themself unlimited power over everyones code. Or something. I'm pretty sure it's evil, anyway.
      (Seriously, who gives themselves that kind of power? What if the government came out and said "We recommend you use this standard template for all private contracts. See here, it has all kinds of nifty standard provisions, breach of contract fines, *cough*alineallowingthestatetoreplaceanytermsinthe contractwithanupdatedversionatwill*cough*" Yes, yes, not quite the same, but allowing a third party to offer licencees an updated license at any time seems... Well, I'm sure they would condemn such a license coming from anyone but themselves.)

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
  10. Re:Bribed. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bottom line is that FSF cannot realistically release a GPLv3 that doesn't have Linus' stamp of approval. Linux is just too big a part of the Free software community to ignore. Of course Stallman and/or Eben Moglen had to convince Linus. It seems to be that at least some of changes were in direct response to his criticisms.

    --
    My blog
  11. Re:viral by BlueTrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Commercial licenses are also viral, most of licenses do NOT allow you to redistribute/resell products using their tools/librairies, unless you pay an extravagant fee.

    People who try to scare you when saying that the GPL is viral are the same ones who put patents over their code and resell you their tools for a fee.

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  12. About time! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I still don't feel that Linus "gets it" about GPLv3. I'm still not entirely sure about GPLv3 myself, and I should probably go back and read a draft.

    But, at least now it's obvious he's reading and comprehending. He may still disagree with it, and I disagree with him, but it looks like they're talking now.

    Which is more than I can say about the last round of flamewars... Last time, he honestly sounded like a Slashdotter who hadn't bothered to RTFA, just repeating the same unfounded arguments, some of which were blatantly wrong to anyone who actually read the license...

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  13. "Pretty Pleased", but... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Torvalds may be "Pretty Pleased" with the current draft, but I won't be satisfied with it until Torvalds is "Pretty Pleased with a Cherry On Top."

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  14. And... by bnavarro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Watch how fast Sun becomes "displeased" with the latest GPL3 draft, and considers not open-sourcing Solaris under the GPL3 license.

    Seriously, this is not a troll. I am convinced that the only reason Sun was considering this is because the Linux project was not. There is no chance in hell they want to see any of their kernel code end up inside the Linux kernel.

  15. Re:So who is more powerful? by melikamp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stallman, obviously, is a half-Human cleric of Lathander and a Divination wizard, while Linus is a pure Gnome Enchanter wizard and has some powerful equipment.

    Sure, Linus has more powerful spells, being a pure class, but, IMHO, Stallman is more powerful because he usually carries the initiative and can cast Silence, which really screws up other casting types.

  16. Both and neither by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hurd has gone nowhere because imho, it lacks a central genius like Linus. BSD gets 1/10 the development effort of Linux (if that). Many developers are willing to work with a BSD license but most aren't. Most people aren't willing to publish their hard work just so some big company can sell it back to them. Without the GPL, Linux would be a poor second cousin to BSD but neither would be as widespread as Linux has become. Both the GPL (Stallman's creation) and Linus were necessary conditions for the success of Linux.

    Actually, I would add another real-world genius: Eban Moglen, the Columbia University law professor who is the legal brains behind the GPL.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen

    1. Re:Both and neither by profplump · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people aren't willing to publish their hard work just so some big company can sell it back to them. Then again, big companies are more willing to pay developers to work hard on a project that they own outright and to which they can sell exclusive rights. I've worked at one of them, and they paid people to work on FreeBSD. It's not such a bad deal.

      The only projects I've ever released under a GPL license are projects that I inherited under a GPL license. I'm reluctant to "give away" my code under a license that takes away (or at least reserves for me) rights from other people that may want to use it -- I'd like to really give it away, no strings attached, or to actually sell it. The GPL's it's-yours-but-you-can-only-like-I-say seems a lot like giving a "gift" to someone that you really bought for yourself.

      I think I understand the motivation behind the GPL (but I could be wrong), and I'm not angry that other people use it, but to me it seems like a distasteful compromise between giving and keeping, and that sort of license holds no interest for me at all.
    2. Re:Both and neither by suggsjc · · Score: 2, Funny

      seems a lot like giving a "gift" to someone that you really bought for yourself.
      Honey, for your birthday your getting a boob job...
      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    3. Re:Both and neither by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then again, big companies are more willing to pay developers to work hard on a project that they own outright and to which they can sell exclusive rights. I've worked at one of them, and they paid people to work on FreeBSD. It's not such a bad deal.

      There. The second time you got it right. One of the reasons why FOSS works so well is that people are mostly programming to their interests. Big companies can pay people to do things that they don't really care about, but it's generally not as high a quality of work as people who are working on something because they love it.

      I'm reluctant to "give away" my code under a license that takes away (or at least reserves for me) rights from other people that may want to use it -- I'd like to really give it away, no strings attached, or to actually sell it. The GPL's it's-yours-but-you-can-only-like-I-say seems a lot like giving a "gift" to someone that you really bought for yourself.

      Here's a way of thinking of the GPL that may change some of your attitude to it. Let's say you were a generous donor to the community and wanted to donate a really nice new playground to the city parks that would be free and available for anyone to use. To make sure your gift stayed available for everyone to use, you add the condition that the city cannot close it off and make it a "pay to enter" playground. Your gift was to the people in the community, but if you don't have that condition on it, it leaves the city with the "freedom" to take that gift away from those you wanted to give it to.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  17. Re:Bribed. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    No? Who's bigger and more well-known amongst todays geeks: Stallman on Linus? I'll bet there's a bunch of young whippersnappers out there who have never heard of rms. (HEY YOU KIDS, GET OFF MY LAWN!) Compare to Linus. Not since Ken has a hacker been known universally by his first name only. If I say 'Linus' in the context of software, you immediately know I'm talking about the blanket-holding, piano-playing kid in the Peanuts cartoon.

    --
    My blog
  18. Re:The anti-tivo clause looks pretty useless to me by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's to persuade anyone to use J. Random Forkoff's kernel, rather than the Linus kernel? FOSS is littered with the corpses of dead forks.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  19. Re:Bribed. by seaturnip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who the hell is Ken?

  20. License upgrades by proxy by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    One immediate question I would have is whether he would leave in the "or any later version" clause this time or remove it again. The annotated diff between GPLv3 draft 1 and GPLv3 draft 2, page 59, section 14, footnote 103, suggests a new method to handle this: "or any later version approved by Linus Torvalds".
  21. Re:Bribed. by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article submitter paints a bit rosier picture than the article and quotes actually support:

    Torvalds: "The current draft makes me think it's at least a possibility in theory, but whether it's practical and worth it is a totally different thing," he said. "Practically speaking, it would involve a lot of work to make sure everything relevant is GPLv3-compatible even if we decided that the GPL 3 is OK."

    Basically, GPLv3 makes it go from "impossible" to "maybe someday". I doubt Linux is moving off of GPLv2 anytime soon, though. I doubt most GPLv2 projects are, and suspect those that do will fork instead of go completely to GPLv3. This will more or less be the open source community shooting itself in the foot.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  22. Re:So who is more powerful? by evil_Tak · · Score: 4, Funny

    I suspect Linus might object to his characterization as a Gnome...is there a race that clearly correlates with KDE?

  23. Re:viral by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Commercial licenses are also viral, most of licenses do NOT allow you to redistribute/resell products using their tools/librairies, unless you pay an extravagant fee."

    And this is viral how? Whether you believe the GPL is viral or not, the fundemental difference is that commerical licenses don't require you to distribute your indepedently written source code even if it's based on their libraries. As far as fees are concerned, many allow you to use their libraries simply because you paid for the tool with no per machine license.

  24. "or any later version" insanity by ville · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I've always wondered that who as a non-FSF entity would leave in the "or any later version" clause. That's just insane and I don't understand why a "good" organization like FSF, which also probably tries to educate people, even has such a potentially dangerous clause in their license.


    Maybe the clause is just that, a clever scheme to teach people to read carefully. I was once in a situation where an employment contract had a "or any later version" clause. The contract was contested and found to be in fact illegal in Finland. I realize contract and copyright law are different, just an example that read before you agree to anything.

    // ville

    1. Re:"or any later version" insanity by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's just insane and I don't understand why a "good" organization like FSF, which also probably tries to educate people, even has such a potentially dangerous clause in their license.

      Why is it insane? There is nothing potentially dangerous about it.

      Your code doesn't become 'GPLv3 or later' when GPLv3 comes out, it STAYS 'GPLv2 or later', meaning it is now available to someone who wants to use it under either the v2 or v3 licenses.

      Thus there is no danger that at some point in the future someone won't be able to use your code with all the rights you assigned to it when you licensed it v2 or later.

      However, if someone down the road likes v5, and starts up a GPLv5 project and they want to use your code, they can. Because at that point your code will be available under v2, v3, v4, and v5.

      Thus the absolute WORST case of releasing your code as 'GPLv2 or later' is that one day the FSF will release a license you don't like, and people using it will still be allowed to use your code.

      IE, the worst case is that future users will have MORE rights to use your code than they have today, if the GPL were to become even less restrictive (e.g. became, say, a BSD-like license). After all if the GPL gets more restrictive people can ALWAYS use your code with ALL the rights of GPLv2.

      I think for nearly all of us, that is pretty much a non-issue. The odds the GPL will become less restrictive than v2 is practically zilch. And even if it did, no harm could come to people who want to use our code.

    2. Re:"or any later version" insanity by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's two dangers to the "any other version" clause

      1) An overly permissive future license allows other people to use and distribute your code in their product without providing source or with restrictions you find repugnant. Not very likely, but consider if the FSF got itself sued for software patent violations or something and Microsoft actually obtained control of it.

      2) A more restrictive future license allows other people to use and distribute your code in their product without allowing you to use their code without those new restrictions. This is much more likely.

      I don't think it's insane for the FSF to recommend the "and all future versions" clause; they trust themselves, after all. But I don't see why anyone else should.

    3. Re:"or any later version" insanity by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because DRM, in the form of trusted platform chips, represents an end-run around free software. If you have access to the source, but the TPM chip requires anything you run on your hardware to be signed, you don't really have any of the four freedoms.

  25. Re:Mozilla tri-license transition by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But Mozilla was, what, two years old? And for the most part, almost all the significant developers were Netscape employees.

    Linux has got to be about 15 years old, and no one organization holds the copyright on the bulk of the code. It'll take a lot more work to make a relicensing possible.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  26. this just means he's not puking on it by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Informative

    The lede and the story don't have quite the same spin. If you read the story it's clear that Linus is pretty pleased that they've gotten rid of the worst aspects in the previous draft. He's no longer puking all over this draft but he's by no means ready to switch.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  27. Re:Bribed. by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stallman on Linus?
    Ugh, I just got a visual.
    --
    "Press to test."
    (click)
    "Release to detonate."
  28. Re:viral by dougmc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who is going to get a change approval from every single one of them?
    It doesn't really matter, because if Linus wanted to, he could start releasing changes to the Linux kernel under GPLv3 (and it specifically said GPLv3) -- so the old code would be under GPLv2 (or really, whatever version of the GPL you preferred, because unless you specifically say what version of the GPL applies, people can pick whichever version of the GPL they want. Read section 9 from the GPL for more on that) and the new Linus provided code would be GPLv3, with all the baggage that entails.


    So, if you were a company that GPLv3 punished, then you'd be punished when dealing with these new kernels, even though most of the kernel didn't have a GPLv3 specific license.

    Now, this assumes that Linus wants GPLv3, which so far he does not. If he doesn't want GPLv3, somebody could attempt to sneak in some patches/new code with a GPLv3-only license, and if Linus put them into the kernel, then the kernel would then have the same GPLv3 baggage. But I suspect that Linus would reject any such patches for now, and if one was snuck in, it would probably be removed if found later.

    In any event, even if the kernel remains non-GPLv3, we may find some commonly used packages going GPLv3-only -- and I'm thinking of things like gcc, binutils, fileutils, textutils, etc. If this happens (and it sound very likely), then anybody who doesn't want to be restricted by the GPLv3 restrictions will not be able to distribute updated versions of these packages. In the short term, this won't be such a big deal, but in the long term, it certainly will be.

    I appreciate what the FSF is trying to do with GPLv3, but I suspect that it's going to cause the `free software movement' a lot of pain, as companies will probably try to move to BSD from Linux (and even then they won't really get away from the GPL, as the BSDs use gcc as their compiler. Perhaps there will be another gcc fork, with the official GPLv3 version and the fork still being GPLv2 or GPLvwhatever?)

  29. Re:Bribed. by ttrafford · · Score: 3, Informative

    Linus spends his time reviewing submitted patches, AIUI. It's project management, but a required part of development on a largish scale.

  30. Re:Bribed. by Otto · · Score: 2, Informative

    You know.
    Ken.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  31. Obligatory... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slow news day? :)

    You must be new here. :P
    (Every day is a slow news day to certain /. editors)
    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  32. Re:Bribed. by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

    I honestly don't see how Linus is that relevant. Linus is like the head priest of the bazaar.
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  33. Re:Bribed. by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most don't.

  34. It may be possible, if by g2devi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > Essentially Torvalds replaced a clause allowing for future upgrades with nothing whatsoever,
    > which means that it's going to be very, very, very hard indeed to ever upgrade the license
    > of the Linux kernel, no matter how necessary.

    Not necessarily. It all depends on how code in the kernel is licensed. There are several files in the kernel that are "GPL 2 or above" and several that are MIT/BSD licensed and several that are LGPL.

    Currently, the kernel is "GPL 2 only" because mixing a single "GPL 2 only" file with any of the other licenses mentioned above makes the whole kernel "GPL 2 only".

    The key question is: What percentage of the code is GPL 2 only? (I believe LWN.net did an analysis a few months back, but unfortunately I can't find a reference. Does anyone have one?)

    If the percentage of GPL 2 only code is small (say 5%) and it's in a noncritical area or can be rewritten quickly or relicensed by the original authors (i.e. they're still around like Linus is) or replaced with other sources like the FreeBSD code or the Solaris kernel (when it goes GPLv3), then changing over to GPL v3 (or at least GPL 2 or above) should be fast.

    But even if this were the case, I wouldn't expect any immediate changes. The GPL v3 needs to be out in the field and kernel developers need to feel comfortable with it and see advantages for it (e.g. Solaris-Linux code sharing) before they'd even consider a switch. That could take a few years.

  35. Mixing GPL versions... by tjwhaynes · · Score: 2, Informative

    The kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2. Some terms allow for it to be "v2 or later", meaning someone can use the code in a GPLv3 kernel. Software companies could also go to dual-licensing and offer it under v2 or v3. Then you could use that code in either a GPLv2 kernel or a GPLv3 kernel. You can't have a part-v3, part-v2 kernel because of license incompatibilities. Thus a kernel would be offered as either pure v2 or pure v3.

    No - the kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2 BUT it is not entirely comprised of GPL v2 only code. 40% of the Linux kernel has the "or later versions" message intact and can be trivially relicensed.

    How much of the Linux kernel is GPLv2?

    GPL v2 and GPL v3 code can be compiled into a single entity without issue. What you can't do is take some GPL v2 code, rewrite part of it and call it GPL v3. Aggregation of code has never been an issue.

    Cheers,
    Toby Haynes

    --
    Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
  36. Linus!?!?!? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Funny
    Geez, pigs will fly! Or at least they will stop being pig-headed :-)

    I had to look twice to make sure this wasn't April first come early.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  37. Re:viral by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 2, Informative

    It doesn't really matter, because if Linus wanted to, he could start releasing changes to the Linux kernel under GPLv3 (and it specifically said GPLv3) -- so the old code would be under GPLv2 (or really, whatever version of the GPL you preferred, because unless you specifically say what version of the GPL applies, people can pick whichever version of the GPL they want. Read section 9 from the GPL for more on that) and the new Linus provided code would be GPLv3, with all the baggage that entails.

    Not really, because the kernel is explicitly states it is licensed under version 2. To quote the COPYING file:

    Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

    Bits and pieces are GPLv2 or later, though

    --
    Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
  38. *Ahem* by warrax_666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/

    Yes, there are some things you cannot do due to this being a user-space implementation, but for many purposes it is (will be once it reaches 1.0) sufficient.

    --
    HAND.
  39. most GPLv2 projects? by s-gen · · Score: 2, Informative

    "I doubt Linux is moving off of GPLv2 anytime soon, though. I doubt most GPLv2 projects are,"
    Its not a problem with most projects. Its only a problem with projects like the kernel where the "or later version" clause is missing.

  40. Re:Tivo-ization by TuringTest · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's the same principal as downloading music. It isn't theft since it's only a copy of something which continues to exist. And anybody who is doing it probably wouldn't bother to do the entire project from scratch (ie, wouldn't buy the album). It doesn't diminsh or affect the value of the original code.

    A better analogy would be if you were a musician who downloaded an album, studied the songs, then starting to play concerts using those songs and forbidding your public to make recordings.

    If you've beneffited from freely obtaining the material in the first place, which right do you have to forbid others to do the same with your value-added work?

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  41. Re:GPL v3 is Novell-cide by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Funny

    Either way it's loose, loose, loose for Novell.

    They could just buy a wrench and tighten that fucker up.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  42. Stallman vs Linus by dmoen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stallman is standing up for his ideals. Linus has no ideals whatsoever, he just want things to work, and doesn't give a rat ass about the so called ideals. That's right.

    In other words, Stallman is a visionary. Linus is just a great engineer. It's true that Stallman is a visionary, but Linus is not a great engineer.
    The early versions of Linux, that contained a lot of Linus's code, were absolute crap.
    Sure, Linus can write code, but he can't engineer his way out of a wet paper bag.
    But he's a great manager, and Linux succeeded due to Linus's leadership abilities,
    not due to his engineering abilities.

    Stallman, on the other hand, is a great engineer.
    Emacs and GCC are testiments to this fact.
    But Stallman is a lousy manager, based on what I've read of the history of the Emacs project.

    Doug Moen
    --
    I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.