Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds "Pretty Pleased" With Latest GPLv3
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."
...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."
the gpl is not viral. Also, its just a license. If the copyright holder wants to he can relicense it to whatever he wants.
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.
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.
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
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?
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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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
I suspect Linus might object to his characterization as a Gnome...is there a race that clearly correlates with KDE?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
> 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.