Linus Warms (Slightly) to GPL3

lisah writes "Though Linus Torvalds isn't exactly tripping over himself to endorse the GPLv3 draft, he continues to warm up to it little by little and says the newest version is 'a hell of a lot better than the disaster that were the earlier drafts.'"

Comments

GPL3 is a good thing

[jshriverWVU]

to whomever wishes to use it. Remember we're all free to choose our license, having another just adds another path a developer can use but not limiting what's already out there.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember we're all free to choose our license...

No, we're all *unfree* to choose our license! Real freedom will be when everyone has to use only free licenses.

Please review RMS's latest encyclical on the difference between Free free and free Free.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[drinkypoo]

Remember we're all free to choose our license, having another just adds another path a developer can use but not limiting what's already out there.

It limits everyone when we have multiple incompatible licenses, because we cannot use code placed under one of these licenses in a project under another license.

The GPLv3 will cause just such a conflict.

Whether this is reason enough to avoid it is another subject. But it's still true.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if it leads to two co-existing incompatible licenses which can't share code-bases - one of the strengths of the GPLv2.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Scarblac]

The FSF has always used "version 2 or later" licenses. In that case, there is no incompatibility.

It's only third party projects that changed that into version 2 only that will now be incompatible.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

The incompatability stems from the incompatability between v2 and v3. v3 is not "backwards compatible"; nor is it compatible with other licenses. That's a problem. Linus has always said that v3 is an over-reaction to a relatively small problem - tivo-ization. Now that we're seeing the MS-Novell and MS-Xandros deals backfiring on all the parties involved, even without the gpl v3, I'd tend to agree.

There's nothing to stop anyone from producing hardware compatible with Tivo's code, minus the "keys".

There's nothing to stop people from switching to another distro when a particular vendor leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

Given that, and that Microsoft would be the loser in any patent war, what's the big rush? GPLv2 isn't broke, but the way some people are reacting, you'd think that Microsoft had managed to coopt all gpl v2 code.

What I'd be more concerned about is that the code written under the "covenants" with Microsoft. And with the status of the people who work on that code. Both the code and the coders will be contaminated, unable to work on related GPL products, the same as if they had partaken of the flavor-aid of Microsoft Shared Source.

Funny how this real threat - contaminated coders - is being overlooked. 5 years from now, Microsoft will be in a position to get injunctions against any distro that uses code touched by them, based on tried and tested copyright law, not patents. That's a real danger, and one that Microsoft will have no fear of retaliation from, unlike a patent war.

Remember, Microsoft has always been very skilled at getting people to look at the wrong hand, just like a magician.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[huckamania]

IANAL, but I do speak english fairly well. In what convoluted universe does "version 2 or later" become "version 2 unless later".

This may seem like trolling, but I just don't like or trust RMS. I understand that the FSF has the linux communities balls in a vice, since they own most, if not all, of the tools used to build for linux. I just see this as something like a land grab. Right now they own the tools, tomorrow, they will own it all. Yep, you can copy and redistribute and improve, but they will still end up owning it cause they own the license. Which only RMS and his lackeys can change.

There's a slippery slope argument that someone else made that shows where GPLv4,5,6,etc will go as RMS roots out the non-believers. You can argue that it won't happen but you will be arguing against history and without proof.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[QuantumG]

You're so right. I mean, some people like having giant bleeding legal holes in the middle of their license. No need to update a 14 year old legal document so those holes can be plugged.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[QuantumG]

The purpose of the GPLv3 is to make the language of the license more legally binding. Everything else that has been added is just icing on the cake. It is possible that some of this language could be backported into the 2.x branch, not incorporating any of this icing, but I don't think there is anyone who wants to do that. We like icing.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

It wouldn't be that big a deal to fork all the gnu tools.

They're all licensed under v2 or later.

While the copyrights have been assigned to the FSF, the original authors aren't employees of the FSF, and are free to fork their own code, same as you're free to fork it.

If the kernel stays at v2, expect to see a lot of forks; RMS might want to go on and on about GNU/Linux, but the simple fact is that that GNU/HURD isn't ever going to be competition.

Also, there's nothing in v3 that prevents you from using v3 tools to compile and build a v2 kernel. Same with openoffice - the book your writing using oo isn't automatically GPL'd. The gpl isn't "that" viral, and if an attempt is ever made to do so(a GPL v4 ???), it will be the end of any use of the GPL. After all, do you really want your email to be GPL'd, and having to make a copy of the source vailable for "distribution" if you've sent a binary attachment?

IBM, Intel, and Sun all have compilers available, if push comes to shove. Come to think of it, so does Microsoft. Now THAT would be ironic.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[N3WBI3]

GPL3 was a solution looking for a problem. Every time something new happens the roll out the GPL 3 as a solution to stop the Bill gates of the world from co-opting opensource. First its Tivoli and patents when thats not hot enough to get people on board wingo we have the Novell MS deal... RMS needs to take a bow and let someone else captain this ship maybe with all the time he can get hurd might see some progress..

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

There's no "hole." Its a software license, and it works fine in its problem domain - software.

Trying to extend it to hardware (tivo-ization) is what is causing the problems.

Anyone is free to use Tivo's software, strip out the DRM aspects, and market their own brand of hardware, thanks to the GPLv2.

As for the patent "issues" - they've already collapsed. Look at the latest FUD victim - Xandros. Its dropped 10 places on distrowatch in 2 weeks (2 weeks ago it was at #18, now its at #28) . There will never be a Microsoft-Linux patent war. Microsoft has too much to lose by actually naming any supposed patent, and facing patent retaliation from IBM et al.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

"more legally binding"?

Either it is, or it isn't. Its only in the SCOniverse that the GPL isn't a legally binding document.

Of course, I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments. What is this "icing" you speak of? All I see is some extra verbiage that attempts to deal with the latest round of patent fud (a fud that has already died aborning, claiming Xandros as its latest victim - no big loss there).

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[hhr]

In a large project link Linux where many developers merge code from many sources, picking your license isn't a simple decision. For exmaple, GNU contrubutes the complier and Command Line Tools. Suppose future versions of that software are release in GPL3. Could the rest of Linux resonably stay on GPL V2?

Yes, you could fork the code, but now you've doubled your maintenace and integration time, time which is probably better spent elsewhere.

You could also release a verion of Linux that's both GPLV2 and GPLV3. That would be very sad.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[houghi]

I am a software user, not a licence user. I don;t give a flying fork about licences. I am not interested in licences. I did not even read the GPL, neither the BSD or Vista or whatever licence that comes with my software.

I want to use software. I want to make software for others. As long as it isn't public domain, a licence is a restriction to what I can do with it, otherwise why have a licence and not just put it under public domain.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[pavon]

Either it is, or it isn't. That's not true. There are many ways to write a license, and even if one we have now is legally binding, that does not mean that it is the best way to word it to be absolutely certain of it's outcome in court, or to minimize time in court.

But more to the point, GPLv2 was really only written with US copyright law in mind. The language of GPLv3 was deliberately and carefully chosen to be as precise and legally binding in as many countries as possible. One example is the use of the word convey rather than distribute, and the precise definition given for the word.

In addition, one particular piece of icing, is that it is actually compatible with more open source licenses, in particular the Apache License.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[evil_Tak]

You're exactly the person for whom the GPL, version 3 and all earlier versions, was written.

As far as a software user is concerned, GPL and public domain are basically equivalent, except that GPL software is guaranteed to stay public domain forever.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a tool. The FSF isn't a one-man 'RMS' show. Eben Moglen probably had more to do with GPLv3 than anyone else. The free software movement isn't about RMS.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[ciggieposeur]

If the kernel stays at v2, expect to see a lot of forks;

*sigh* OK, let's repeat what always comes around on every one of these discussions:

Point one:

THE KERNEL IS GPL V2 (TWO) ONLY. THE LINUX KERNEL CANNOT BE FORKED TO GPL V3 WITHOUT AN UNGODLY AMOUNT OF WORK AND THERE IS NO POINT IN DOING THAT.

Point two:

IT IS PERFECTLY FINE TO HAVE THE LINUX KERNEL AT GPL V2 AND THE REST OF A LINUX SYSTEM AT GPL V3, JUST AS PARTS OF ALL LINUX SYSTEMS TODAY HAVE CODE THAT IS UNDER BSD, APACHE, MOZILLA, ETC. LICENSES.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[N3WBI3]

Strong words from an AC...

The free software movement isn't about RMS.

Somebody tell RMS that..

"Mr Stallman made perfectly clear that his point of view is: It's enough. It's enough that the world has to pay attention to that [DRM] problem the way the world needed to pay attention to the patent problem 10 years ago," -- Eben Moglen

Lets be clear I dont know who has written more of the GPL3 but its obvious who the driving force is, even Moglen admits that!

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[turbidostato]

"For exmaple, GNU contrubutes the complier and Command Line Tools. Suppose future versions of that software are release in GPL3. Could the rest of Linux resonably stay on GPL V2?"

You should try for a better example: both the compiler and command line tools are the less "viral" of all software since they doesn't bind to anything in order to be used.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

The GPL v2 as held to be valid in European courts (against SCO, of all people :-) Linuxtag in Germany got a restraining order against them. Courts look at the intent if the wording is ambiguous; in this case, the wording was sufficient.

"In addition, one particular piece of icing, is that it is actually compatible with more open source licenses, in particular the Apache License." ... but its not back-compatible with gpl v2 - and that's a nasty "bug", because GPL v2 is a known. proven quantity - people are comfortable with it. The process around GPL v3 sucked, the constant whining about Microsoft/Novell made the people involved look immature, and it doesn't do what its proponents claim it does - it provides zero protection against patent trolls, for example, who are far more likely to make an attack than Microsoft.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

I wasn't saying the kernel would fork, but that all the GNU tools would be forked, which is a lot easier to do. Thats why I pointed out that IBM, Intel and Sun have compilers if we ever have to dump gcc.

Forking cat and head (and dumping those stupid .info files - man pages are good enough) ... why not ?

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Adult film producer]

"Funny how this real threat - contaminated coders - is being overlooked. 5 years from now, Microsoft will be in a position to get injunctions against any distro that uses code touched by them, based on tried and tested copyright law, not patents. That's a real danger"

This fear has had me concerned about the Gnome Desktop project. IIRC Many of the gnome devs work at Novell (novell acquired Ximian a few years back.) So guys like Miguel De Icaza are blazing away on .NET and gtk/gnome and various other projects... has there been an investigation as to what harm they are potentially causing to these gpl works?

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[drinkypoo]

It's only third party projects that changed that into version 2 only that will now be incompatible.

"Third party" doesn't mean "anything not done by GNU with copyrights held by the FSF".

Regardless, there's more non-FSF code than there is FSF code on this planet, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nothing interesting, regardless.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[PitaBred]

Malkovich? Malkovich malkovich!

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

I fear it would tank gnome.

Also, it would mean the removal of all mono-based tools, and a lot of OpenSuse/Suse uses Mono ... which was what came to my mind when people started with the "patents fud" stuff.

Fortunately, we have alternatives (except for the GIMP, which really relies heavily on gtk2).

If you were Microsoft, wouldn't it be worth a billion to "contaminate" the top developers at most of your competition, and any projects they've worked on? The FUD alone would be worth billions; the success of any copyright-based attack would be devastating. Can you imagine how hard it would be to have to revert to a code base from 5 years in the past?

Projects are going to have to start vetting their programmers for:

1. have you ever used "Microsoft Shared Source" or worked on a project that did?
2. have you ever worked on any project that was developed to help interoperability with Windows under a Microsoft/[insert linux company] program?
3. have you ever contributed code to any related project?
4. have you ever worked on an unrelated project with someone who is affected by #1 or #2?

At least when you work on proprietary software, you can "compartmentalize" your knowledge. Write a graphics package for work, work on a completely unrelated f/loss server package on your own time. These "collaborations" are dangerous because of their long-term effects.

Linus has it right - don't look at what the competition is doing, because then they can accuse you of having unclean hands.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

I agree.

Maybe we just need a "plain-talk" license, like borland used to have.

" You may use this code any way you want to, provided you're not Microsoft, SCO, or anyone else on our current sh*t list. "

At least it would be more honest ...

Then again, if Microsoft really wanted to change its spots, shake up its corporate culture, and send the right signals for a change, it would start making serious contributions under a true F/LOSS license (not "shared source").

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[mrsteveman1]

Thats partially true, but what i see right now is Microsoft making deals with vendors who supply the most usable finished Linux desktops available.

And i have a feeling Microsoft feels threatened by OpenSuSE and Xandros more than Debian or Ubuntu for a reason, namely that the first 2 are much more usable out of the box and in many cases come with custom software the others dont, such as Xandros which comes with Codeweavers in the pro version. They seem to be poisoning the Linux systems that are easy for Windows users to transition to, probably to make converting to Linux as hard as possible.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if Microsoft does port some of their code under the GPLv2 or v3 and takes credit for it, then they can't sue as they agreed to the terms of the GPL. If Novell or Xandros takes Microsoft's code and puts it under the GPLv2 or v3, then it would be Novell who would be sued for copyright infringement as they didn't own the code and thus weren't allowed to put it under the GNU Public License... I believe the Open Source community would be symathetic to Microsoft and boycott Novell and Xandros code.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[cyphercell]

I don't really think it would be a fork, if the demand was high enough, I don't see why they wouldn't just be dual licensed. Actually forking the software would create one god awful mess as the division grew larger.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Short Circuit]

Also, there's nothing in v3 that prevents you from using v3 tools to compile and build a v2 kernel. Same with openoffice - the book your writing using oo isn't automatically GPL'd. The gpl isn't "that" viral Actually, bison was, for a while. The source files it was used to automatically generate included the GPL license header. Needless to say, that was eventually changed.

There were also aruments about gcc's component nature and concerns that third-party developers would make proprietary tools that lodged themselves between gcc's compile stages.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Planesdragon]

As far as a software user is concerned, GPL and public domain are basically equivalent, except that GPL software is guaranteed to stay public domain forever.

Be careful with that word.

In 200 years every single line of copylefted code written today will be public domain. All it takes is someone making a meaningful contribution to them -- which I hope will be easy enough in two centuries -- to lock it down as they see fit.

And that's not even entertaining the notion of an abolition of the public domain, the militarization of computer copyrights, or the simple exclusion of software from copyright.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Charles W Griswold]

No, we're all *unfree* to choose our license! Real freedom will be when everyone has to use only free licenses.

That's right! Because true freedom can only occur when everyone does it my way! :-P

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Short Circuit]

except that GPL software is guaranteed to stay public domain forever. Correction: There's nothing that prevents public domain material from being perpetually under the public domain. Derivatives of public-domain material are a different story. Derivatives of GPL-licensed software are guaranteed to be licensed under the GPL.

It's all about the derivatives.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[SpringRevolt]

THE KERNEL IS GPL V2 (TWO) ONLY. That is simply not the case. Please read the source code files for Linux and you will find literally thousands of files that are distributed under "version 2 or later".

i.e. Linux - at least in part - is v3 (optionally at users choice) whether Linus likes it or not.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[thelawal]

That sounds about like RMS and FSF. The FSF claims to promote free software but they promote only GNU Free Software. So basically I really don't think that they care too much about the open source community just the GNU community. So, Mr Griswold seems to have hit the nail on the head. The real question is what happens if the poster child for the FSF is not GPLv3.

Some people need to realize that the Free Software Foundation did not create open source software. Nor do they control it.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[sumdumass]

It could be possible with the current wording of the GPLv3, we will see what happens first hand.

There are certain pieces of software that people and companies just seem not to be able to get away from. And interesting note is going to be when they position the act of using those pieces of software to violate the paten clause that says you cannot use the freedoms the GPL uses. If and When this happens, the idea of taking GPL software and making something from it will be gone for a lot of people and companies. But alas it seem to be what they want. It is their code and they claim they don't care about MS placing stuff in their product licenses that could kick the average user into a mini novels and have the GPL exclude them from participating.

I think that when you have enough people who cannot participate, the license will go south. Sure it is the developers and sure it is their decision. But why are they sticking with a license people won't be able to use because some third part does something with the license for their product that causes the ANTI novell clauses to exclude them the user from participating when someone buys the third party software. I know it is confusing. But it will likely happen. And the GPLv3 will go so far south that people won't even want to remember it. It will take the free software community back a few big steps and it will probably bring something else to the front of the stage. Hopefully it doesn't make the same mistakes.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[sumdumass]

A dual license negates one license when they are incompatible because of restrictions.

Suppose license A says nothign about using this code to make an atom bomb. License B says you cannot use it to make an atom bomb. All I have to do is grab a copy from license A and I get completely around the restrictions in license B.

Do you see where the problem with a dual license is? If you not worried about the parts that make the incompatible, then why are they there in the first place. Remove that and the incompatibility is gone while the need for a fork or dual license is gone too. Now most people believed that was what the in the same spirit was supposed to protect against. Unfortunately the people in charge of it have other things in mind.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Charles W Griswold]

Don't get me wrong. I like open source software. I like the GPL (in all of it's various incarnations). I just think that it's absurd (and more than a bit hypocritical) for advocates of freedom to tell us that we have to do things their way. If I really want to release something under (for instance) a Creative Commons license or even (gasp!) a closed-source license, that's my prerogative and if RMS or anyone else has a problem with that then it's their problem, not mine.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter what the case you think may be. There are two problems with adding and removing the or later version in the GPL license clause.

The first is the terms of the GPL. You cannot make a derivative work and not use the exact same license as before. The GPL or later or the GPL (only) are two separate licenses in this respect. Other wise, I could start a company called GPL enterprises and offer the "GPLv6 extreme license" and people could use it with the derived works instead. So if linus is correct and that the license for the Kernel is GPLv2 only, neglecting to take the or later version out doesn't change the license.

Be prepared for a legal battle that will be lost if this is attempted. I am willing to bet that showing a contribution from someone connected to the change and the people wanting to change it is all the evidence necessary to show foul play if the situation ever arises.

The other problem is well, I just combines the two problems. I should have separated that last thought into two sections. One covering the intent and how binding the license already is and one about the practical success on a legal front.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[sumdumass]

The problem isn't going to be MS giving code away and then suing people for using it. Once the GPLv3 is out and in force, MS will change a windows license and have the effect of making everyone using their products a mini-novell and then the GPLv3 will not let them participate in the freedoms it tries to protect.

Who cares about the top developers when they can take the majority of companies and users completely out of the picture. And when they do this, they will point to the GPLv3 and say they are doing it not us. The FSF community roped into this will have to function like a company where expansion requires paying people not to use MS products no matter how much they need them. It will effectively take one of the strong point of "giving back" away. And it will limit the places the software can be distributed from too.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Hal_Porter]

The users are free to choose GPL3 if the developer left in the "or later version" clause. Then the developer is not free to stick to GPL2. Or maybe the developer is Liberated a la Iraq rather than free, I'm not sure of the correct GNU/Speak for this case. If I say it in English, it seems like the developer has lost some freedom to keep his patents and keys private, but that can't be correct can it?

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[HiThere]

It would be impossible to add more legal verbage to the GPL2. You could add an explanatory wrapper which basically said "This isn't the license, but it's what I think the license should mean".

Also, GPL2 cannot be made compatible with the Apache license. You can't change the license. Part of the reason the GPL3 is as incompatible as it is with the GPL2 is so that it CAN be compatible with the Apache license (and then, at the last minute, they thought they'd blown it...but an emergency conference ironed out the wrinkles).

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[rtb61]

Well, you are absolutely free to do so, just don't use anybodies else's code, that they were free to choose to licence under which ever version of GPL they preferred. What you are really saying is that nobody else is allowed to publicly publish code under a licence that you can't steal from and claim as your own.

I bet you also like first to patent laws, not first to publish the idea.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[b1ufox]

Being a kernel developer, i suggest you change the way you think. This "version 2 or later" is crap.

It means version 2 or later for *you* to choose and some of the people preferred version 2 and want to stick to it.There is no obligation to upgrade to GPL version 3 whatsoever the case may be. Plus imagine 100 developers contributing to your project, don't you think this "version 2 or later" clause is utterly confusing for the original author, if he decides to upgrade the GPL license. He 'll have to take permission from all the 100 developers some of whom may *not* agree.What then?

I personally feel it is confusion if looked as it is.Rather in reality it is simply go use version 2 or later if you feel like when you can upgrade the license. And indeed a crappy clause. Hope this cleared the or later fiasco confusion. thanks

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[jhol13]

There's nothing to stop anyone from producing hardware compatible with Tivo's code, minus the "keys". Tell me, why on earth should I write and distribute my code with a license that allows Tivo to use it without giving me back anything?

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[cyphercell]

A dual license negates one license when they are incompatible because of restrictions.

Except the only reason to dual license is due to perceived perceptions. All you really have to do (as a developer) is cater to one side. This is a bit simpler than just forking everything. That's why MySQL did it and the FSF, if faced with losing their grip on their software, will cater to the community, dual licenses are preferable when compared to people adding new functionality to existing GPLv2 software. Examples of this are everywhere, for instance M$s shared source license are an example of dual licensing while favoring one side.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[kaens]

Here's a question: Does using a script to make calls to a program that is gpl'ed mean that the script making the calls needs to be gpl'ed By "making calls", I mean through something like: (in python:) subprocess.call(['ossapp','-whatever']) not: import ossapp_api ossapp_api.run_ossapp('-whatever') The gpl faq is not clear on this (or I missed the relevant section)

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[sumdumass]

I see your point. But what I don't understand is, if your willing to forgo the added stuff in the new license, then why is it there in the first place? As far as I know, the dual licenses you mentioned added freedoms in certain situations. It didn't counter the objectives of the main licenses. Going against or negating the impact of the GPLv3's patent clauses, the anti Tivo clauses, and the anti novell clauses seems to be the major part of the GPLv3.

If they are going to be willing to forgo it, then I don't understand the reasoning behind having it there in the first place. They could remove it and not have incompatible licenses in the first place. Maybe express the intent of the existing GPL license to include such questionable items to clarify the spirit or something. But it all seems like an exorcise designed to fracture and break apart an already good thing.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[simm1701]

I think this comes under derivative works

Please feel free to ignore/flame/applaud the following comments as you see fit - IANAL and I don't have a copy of the GPL in front of me, this is from memory from essays I have read.

One of the main tests for a derivative work is would it be possible with zero or only minor modifications to substitute the GPL component for another component (which may or may not exist) which could do the same task.

In the case of system calls my understanding is that its almost always true, unless the script is so tied tot he particular application that it is more of an extension of that application than a script in its own right.

Linking gets a little more complicated due to the difference between the LGPL and the GPL but in short you can link dynamically to LGPL code and still pick your own license. If you link statically to either or link at all to GPL code then you are in derivative work land (I'm pretty certain about the LGPL part and I'll admit I'm uncertain about the ramifications of dynamically linking to a GPL library)

I hope that this post has at the very least raised some useful questions, even if it has failed to answer any despite a valiant attempt

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[TuringTest]

it seems like the developer has lost some freedom to keep his patents and keys private, but that can't be correct can it? Nope, developers have freedom to keep his patents and keys private, as long as they don't include GPLv3 code in their project (and later distribute it). What they won't have is freedom to do both things at the same time, but since doing so would be against the four protected freedoms for the other users, there is no point in GPL to allow for that possibility.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[pinky0x51]

>The incompatability stems from the incompatability between v2 and v3. v3 is not "backwards compatible"; nor is it compatible with other licenses.

GPLv3 is compatible with other licenses, it is even more compatible than GPLv2. GPLv3 will be compatible to all license to which GPLv2 is compatible. For a list see GPL(v2)-Compatible Free Software Licenses. GPLv3 will be at least also compatible with the Apache license and afaik the Eclipse license.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Hal_Porter]

What happens if the developer contributed code to a GPL2 project which had the "or later clause". They could do this have no intention of licensing their patents. Then later on the GPL3 is published and users can opt to license the code under GPL3. At that point, the developer has lost the right to their patents.

It's not completely artificial either. Lots of people work for companies with exclusive patent licenses from a third party which apply to their products alone. Finding out that their contributions to some GPL2 project suddenly forces them to license those patents to everyone will be rather bad news. Good luck getting them to contribute to GPL licensed projects in future.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

There are a LOT of developers at Novell - Novell is one of the biggest contributors to kernel code, for example. Imagine being able to "taint" the kernel via this deal ... its would be worth at least $25 billion. Remember, linux is the #1 threat to them.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[TuringTest]

What happens if the developer contributed code to a GPL2 project which had the "or later clause". They could do this have no intention of licensing their patents. If you license your code with a license that gives power to a third party, don't complain when that third party uses that power. If the developer didn't want to license their patent, they shouldn't have published it under GPLv3 (which they did when added the "or later" clause, which could have been omitted). Damn, if they didn't want to license the patent, they shouldn't publish the code under GPLv2 either - GPL'ed code is meant to be shared and shared alike, not encumbered by patents.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

"Tell me, why on earth should I write and distribute my code with a license that allows Tivo to use it without giving me back anything?"

1. People write code under the BSD license all the time.
2. Tivo WILL give you back any improvements they make - they have no choice. You can get all the Tivo code from them.

Here's the Tivo source. You can download gzipped tarballs of all the source directly from the site, or you can even get a CD for $15.

In compliance with the GPL version 2, we are pleased to provide our modifications to the Linux Kernel, as well as a few new commands, and some tools to get you into the code.

Additionally, if you would like a CD-R of our modifications you may send a written request to:

TiVo Inc. 2160 Gold St. Alviso CA 95002-2160

Attention: Customer Care - GNU/Linux Source Code Request. You will be charged a $15 fee for reproduction, shipping and handling costs, as allowed by the GPL version 2. Make sure that you include a bank certified check for $15.00. Otherwise, you can download the code for free from below:

So you see, if you decide to sell competing hardware, Tivo uses your GPL v2 code, and makes changes to it, you WILL get a copy of all the changes, to use in your product, just as the GPL provides.

The GPL is a software license, not a hardware license. GPL v3 is trying to blur the lines, and it may backfire.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

However, GPL v2 is not compatible with GPL v3, because GPL v3 has additional restrictions and requirements that GPL v2 doesn't have.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Hal_Porter]

Any big company has patents of their own and usually patents that they exclusively license from competitors. E.g. consider Intel and AMD. Intel sued AMD for patent infringement and in the end there was a settlement. AMD has granted Intel an exclusive license to its patents and vice versa. AMD apparently ended up paying Intel since their portfolio was smaller. I realise that this is mostly hardware patents, but there are analogous cases with software patents I'm sure.

Now inside those companies, developers contribute to a GPL2 project where the patent licensing clause is not present but the "or later clause" is. When GPL3 is released their users can take the code an AMD developer contributed and opt to license it under GPL3 and demand AMD grant them a license to Intels's patents which they can't do without going back to court. Most likely this would be the end of AMD.

Do you see the problem? The original developer has unwittingly got his employer in a very difficult situation.

This case is very different from a developer trying to submarine patented code into a GPL2 project, which is the one GPL3 zealots use to justify the patent clauses.

If you license your code with a license that gives power to a third party, don't complain when that third party uses that power.

Yeah, don't use the GPL which a third party can change without asking you in a way that causes you to get sued into oblivion

If the developer didn't want to license their patent, they shouldn't have published it under GPLv3 (which they did when added the "or later" clause, which could have been omitted).

It's not their patent, it's a patent their company exclusively licensed from a competitor as part of a settlement in a patent lawsuit. The developer doesn't even know about it. And the GPL2 he agreed to didn't mention patents.

Damn, if they didn't want to license the patent, they shouldn't publish the code under GPLv2 either - GPL'ed code is meant to be shared and shared alike, not encumbered by patents.

They guy that wrote the code probably didn't know about the patent as I keep saying. His employer's legal department might have done, but since GPL2 doesn't mention patents and he probably didn't ask them, he thought he was doing everyone a favour with no downside. Actually, he's probably blown his job away once the legal department work out what he's done to them.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[pinky0x51]

>However, GPL v2 is not compatible with GPL v3

If you use "GPLv2 or later" than it is compatible otherwise not. But this was clear from the beginning. Every new GPL will always be incompatible with the old GPLs that's why the "or later"-clause exist. The only way to make an new GPL compatible to a old GPL would be to make the new GPL equal to the old GPL and than you wouldn't need to write a new one.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[TuringTest]

Any big company has patents of their own and usually patents that they exclusively license from competitors. E.g. consider Intel and AMD. Intel sued AMD for patent infringement and in the end there was a settlement. AMD has granted Intel an exclusive license to its patents and vice versa. AMD apparently ended up paying Intel since their portfolio was smaller. I realise that this is mostly hardware patents, but there are analogous cases with software patents I'm sure.

Now inside those companies, developers contribute to a GPL2 project where the patent licensing clause is not present but the "or later clause" is. When GPL3 is released their users can take the code an AMD developer contributed and opt to license it under GPL3 and demand AMD grant them a license to Intels's patents which they can't do without going back to court. Most likely this would be the end of AMD. That's why big corporations have lawyer departments, isn't it? In your constructed case, the legal team wouldn't allow the individual developer to release code under a license that could be changed by the FSF at any time. So that's not a realistic scenario.

You can still use the GPL version 2, but if you DO include the "or later, as publised by the FSF" clause, then you KNOW you are affected by FSF decisions. If you CAN'T do that because you are tied by other companies patents, then you have no right to distribute the GPL code in the first place. How is that different to any other kind of licensed, proprietary code?

They guy that wrote the code probably didn't know about the patent as I keep saying. His employer's legal department might have done, but since GPL2 doesn't mention patents and he probably didn't ask them, he thought he was doing everyone a favour with no downside. So, you're blaming the license for the possibility that irresponsible developers, that release enterprise code without consulting their legal department, could not comply with copyright legal terms?

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[Charles W Griswold]

Well, you are absolutely free to do so, just don't use anybodies else's code, that they were free to choose to licence under which ever version of GPL they preferred.

Eh, whatever. Not sure what you're point is. Oh, wait, are you saying that if I publish close sourced code I can use GPL'd in it? I fully realize that. I'm not stupid. If you're trying to say that I prefer closed source then you completely missed the point of everything I was saying.

What you are really saying is that nobody else is allowed to publicly publish code under a licence that you can't steal from and claim as your own.

You lie. At no point did I say that. I did at one point say "That's right! Because true freedom can only occur when everyone does it my way! :-P" but if you had been paying attention you would have realized that I was being sarcastic. In my last post (the one that you responded to) I made the point (very clearly, I though) that while I like Open Source licenses, I believe that people have the right to use whatever license they wish (as long as they don't thereby infringe on someone else's license).

I bet you also like first to patent laws, not first to publish the idea.

Well, since I'm not really a fan of patents (especially software patents) you lose that bet. What did I win?

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[jhol13]

Sorry, but you failed give me any reason to write code in a license which does not force Tivo to give me the HW in a form which I can use it.

See, after all it is (or actually would be - I never wrote anything which Tivo uses) *my* code - *I* can make the rules.

Giving me SW which I cannot use is, obviously, totally useless - the code I wrote most likely was not (to me).

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

You miss the point about the GPL - anyone is free to use the code, provided that, if they distribute, they have to make the source available. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to use it - you can't say "I don't want [insert evil company] to use my code" - even Microsoft can use GPL'd code (and they do - python is used in WGA) provided they distribute the source either with the binory or upon request.

What if Tivo comes up with a better way to, for example, get rid of the "increstations" - the logos that most TV networks put on their shows ... you'd get the source, and you're free to modify it for work with your favourite frame-grabber.

Your own computer contains a lot of closed-source hardware - the cpu, for starters. Video cards are also closed-source hardware. Even if nvidia releases their driver source, its useless to you for programming your SiS video chip.

Also, there are specific situations where there is no way in hell you're going to see GPLv3 software used - medical devices. GPL v2 software would be fine, because you CAN "lock it down a la Tivo". Its turning out that companies that have to meet the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements have to be able to prevent unauthorized mods.

Do you really want to cede the entire medical, defense, and eventually even the networking and telco infrastructure markets? Or would you rather see the "hardening" put in those trickle bach?

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[jhol13]

You miss the point.

The point is that I get to pick the license for the software I write. I can say that company X cannot use my source if I so want. I can, and will, say that any company cannot use my source to lock me out.

And actually, if it were feasible, I would *love* to rule out "defense" (arms) business. Unfortunately it is not.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing

[trolltalk.com]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to benefit from other people modding your code, you have to share it. If you want to GPL it, yoiu can't say "GPL except for X, Y and Z people".

As for locking out defense industries - do you REALLY want cruise missiles under the control of a Windows box? There were enough problems during the original Desert Storm because Windows wasn't designed to go more than 45 days without a reboot, and someone forgot. Same as some ATC software at a major airport - someone removed the reboot from the scheduled maintenance.

lets take a point from the man himself...

[Aranykai]

"I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push the GPLv3)." No one is forcing anyone to use this. If you dont like it, chose another licensing scheme. And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Otter Escaping North]

This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it.

You must be new here.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easy to see where we are going

BSD License: Use our code, but keep our names in the source.
GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way. GPL4 License: Use our code, give back your code, do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way, grow your hair long and give up showering.

Remember kiddies: Restrictions are freedom.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Hmm.... Wait... Sun is a company right?

So why does it look like they'll be going for GPLv3 instead of v2 for Solaris and Java stuff then, if that is less attractive to companies? Perhaps what you meant was; Some companies like v2 better than v3.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[kebes]

v3 makes the GPL less attractive ... A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.

But that was precisely the fear with GPLv2: that no company would touch it because that would give their competitors and advantage. But in the end, companies realized that the GPL levels the playing field, so although your competitor can use the code, you get to have his code modifications, too. And you're getting a community helping improve your code. So lots of company are now using GPLv2 code.

This will be true of GPLv3. Companies will use GPLv3 code if there is GPLv3 code they want. If GPLv3 becomes frequently used by people, then companies will use the code, and contribute to the codebase. The "danger" of competitors using your improvements has always been there: it's fundamental to the GPL. Plenty of companies can't get over this fear of being cooperative. But, some companies seem to be able to overcome the fear and do quite well using GPL software. GPLv3 will be the same thing: if there is a community of GPLv3 coders, then companies will set-up shop around them.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[roscivs]

GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

"we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." -- GPLv2

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[vakuona]

Because Sun owns all the code (pretty much) there, so they are not really limited by the license they choose. Everyone else is though, and so Sun does not lose much or anything at all.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[metamatic]

"tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)

Well, sure, if you think there's nothing wrong with companies taking away the 4 freedoms from end users of GPL software, then there's no reason to use GPL v3.

But if that's what you think, why use GPL v2 either? Why not just use BSD?

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right! And I think the licenses are better described as:

Public Domain: Do whatever you want.
BSD License: Use our code, but keep our names in the source.
GPL2 License: Use our code, but keep the code free for everyone to use or modify.
GPL3 License: Use our code, but keep the code free for everyone to use or modify. (Yes, we really meant it when we said "free." That means no patent restrictions.)
Proprietary License: Don't use our code.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[tchuladdiass]

Because the GPL V3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only code, such as the Linux Kernel. Sun want's to get most of the advantages of open source, however they DON'T want any unique Solaris code ending up in the Linux kernel. If the Linux kernel was GPLv2-or-later, then Sun woudn't be touching any gpl license within a 100 yards of their Solaris kernel.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Kjella]

GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

It really goes more like:
GPL2 License: Use our code, but don't restrict your code or derivative program in any way.
GPL3 License: Use our code, but don't restrict your code or derivative program in any way and now we've covered your loopholes.

There are a great many things you can say about RMS, but being inconsistant is not one of them. If you read about the freedoms he wrote about when the GPLv2 was made, you'll realize that DRM, patents and tivoization are all against the spirit of the license. The GPL was made so that you could use the work in private, but so that it would never return to the public in a form less free than it was when you took it. If you subscribe to the RMS ideology, the GPLv3 is only a logical continuation of that.

Of course, many people don't. While intents may clarify how something should be read, what's not written in the license isn't in the license. So a lot of people have looked at the text of the GPLv2, and found those terms acceptable by itself. To them, maybe the GPLv3 comes as a surprise bur ir shouldn't.

A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, (...)

Tell me, if you were considering whether to license something as GPLv2 or GPLv3, which is preferable:
a) A company that takes your code can't use DRM to make people pay for your code
b) A copmany that takes your code can sell it to consumers on their Tivoized box because it needs their company's signature
I know which one I'd prefer, the one that didn't give that other company a free profit at my expense. And the GPLv3 is better at it.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[squiggleslash]

Yes, because Sun would be so upset if someone used their free software in another free software operating system. Or if someone put another free operating system's code in their free operating system.

I don't think so. That really doesn't make a lot of sense. Sun presumably wants the best operating system it can get, and if that's a frankenstein-like Linux/SunOS hybrid, then that's what they want.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Znork]

I'd say it's more like:

GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.

GPL3 License: Use our code, but give back your code too. And quit trying to get cute, smartarse.

"I think v3 makes the GPL less attractive to companies"

Hardly. It makes trying to do end runs around the license less attractive. For those who intend to honor the letter and spirit of the GPL it makes no real difference.

For honest companies recieving and using GPL code it serves to protect them against further submerged litigation mines. The only ones hurt are those intent on breaking the rules.

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes"

Yes they can. The time lead and expertise is enough to compete very well in an industry with rapid product turnover. They're getting _most of their code for free_, remember? The only resources they have to invest are their edge above the baseline.

The competetive free market isnt about protecting ROI while you sit twiddling your thumbs. It's about allowing profit until cutthroat competition will catches up, thus enforcing a constant equilibrium of forced continous improvement or risking lost profits.

The GPL enforces this cycle of rapid competitive improvements and subsequent baseline merges. This enforced free market, this protection from market control and monopoly inefficiency is what enables free software, just like a free market, to compete with, and even outcompete the protected markets with a fraction of the investment and resources.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[HalAtWork]

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed."

That's ridiculous, sure they can. You can go on selling your product and making use of GPLed software, and so can they. What's the problem if you fix a bug in the invoice software so that you can bill them properly and they can bill you properly, doesn't it benefit the both of you?

The point of GPLv3 is not to remove incentives to contribute, but to remove the ability for companies to introduce IP into GPL software that other users cannot use as GPL software is intended (modify, redistribute, run/execute) for they will be infringing on said IP.

What exactly is the point of coding something, having a company modify it and introduce their own portions, and then they turn around and say "You can't use it anymore because our IP's in it, if you do, you're infringing... oh, and we won't tell you where it is, it's up to you to know where it is and remove it"?

Should you have to pore over the code of every app available in the next Linux distro you use just to make sure you won't get sued? Is this the point of Free software?

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no danger to competitors using improvements. Unlike a brake pedal, which is something you just copy and screw together, you only gain an advantage from code that your developers know inside and out. You don't want to keep your code away from your competitors. You want to keep your developers away from your competitors.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Skapare]

GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and make sure I can still use it on the hardware you distributed it on even if I recompile it from source myself.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[colmore]

Why should my work support someone else's patents and DRM, both of which I find to be utter abberations on the face of computing. What's the point of having code be made open souce if it's going to be patented so that derivitive works can't be made -- that's the whole durn' point. If private interests want DRM and patents, then they can do their own work and keep it closed, but if they're taking code from the FSF, the GPL and millions of coders like me, then I'd prefer they keep their hands above the table, and keep that kind of anti-consumer BS out of their products.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[tkinnun0]

If Tivo had bought a proprietary license for GNU/Linux from the FSF, there wouldn't be any "tivoization". Now now, FSF couldn't and wouldn't sell such a license, but it shows the power of the copyright holder. So, what's to stop someone like Red Hat, Inc. (NYSE: RHT) or MySQL AB from doing that? No wait, they already do.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember kiddies: Restrictions are freedom.

With every freedom comes a responsibility. This idea predates Orwell by centuries, and is one of the bases of classical American democracy.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[marcosdumay]

"I know which one I'd prefer, the one that didn't give that other company a free profit at my expense. And the GPLv3 is better at it."

And if you don't mind companies releasing proprietary extensions of your code, or stopping people from redistribute it, please use BSD or MIT licenses. That way you'll be compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and Apache, Eclipse, ...).

There is little reason to use GPLv2 once v3 is out.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible. :-P

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Weezul]

A more restrictive license is better *if* you actually own the code. TiVo can always buy the right for a tivoisation from Sun.

Linus is dead wrong about GPLv3. A more restrictive license make real open source software providers into more profitable companies. Programmers who are less famous than Linus will use GPLv3 becaue it'll mean TiVo-like companies must pay them.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Error27]

GPLv3 makes sense for Solaris because it's incompatible with the Linux kernel licensing. It makes sense for JAVA too because it's compatible with the apache license.

But overall (ignoring Sun) the GPLv3 is a big waste of time and a step backwards.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[Breakfast Pants]

Why not add a clause saying it can't be used in military applications as well! Then you will be even less compatible with everyone else.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[vakuona]

No Redhat doesn't sell a proprietary license for Linux.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[HiThere]

It's only less attractive to companies that are receiving the code, not to the ones that are offering it. Unless you are planning a law suit, then donating code under GPL3 is more advantageous than donating it under GPL2. (Well, or planning to release DRM based code...but why would anyone do that? The people who want to include the DRM aren't big on creating code. Only on making small patches. Otherwise they'd chose a different license, but if they want to use prewritten code, then that option is barred to them.)

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[jhol13]

I disagree completely. After reading CDDL (the license Sun uses for OpenSolaris at the moment) it is very clear to me that the patent clause is very important to Sun.

After all, MPL (Mozilla public license) has only one major difference to GPLv2 - patent clause. CDDL is essentially same as MPL.

And, actually, Solaris would benefit much more about Linux (kernel) than other way round - the easiest parts to integrate are device drivers which Solaris needs.

And overall (ignoring Torvalds and Sun) GPL is a big step forwards.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[asninn]

It just depends on the programmer's preference. I like BSD still personally. It gives companies incentives to help out, where I think the GPLv2 is less attractive to companies which will hurt it in the long run imho. A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[asninn]

Indeed - and then instead of licensing patents, they just signed a "covenant not to sue". It's very much against the spirit of the license, but apparently not the letter, and while the spirit of a license and the intent of the licensor will certainly be taken into account in court, it's always a better idea to just fix the letter of the license to close the loophole, too.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself...

[TuringTest]

Remember kiddies: Restrictions are freedom. Yes, precisely because your freedom begins where mine ends. If I have no restrictions, you have no freedom.

I think that this is good to

[eclectro]

That the warning is slight.

Best part of the article.

[jshriverWVU]

"if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at least see the _reason_ for GPLv3."

I wasn't even aware Sun was considering GPLv3 for OpenSolaris. So it'll be interesting to see how that pans out. Remember GPL isn't just for gnu/linux, but MANY projects on many platforms and operating systems.

Re:Best part of the article.

[Hatta]

If OpenSolaris goes GPL, that will mean nice things for ZFS on linux.

interconnections

[LaminatorX]

So what happens when the libc, bash, make, and all the other GNU tools go GPL3 and the kernel is still GPL2?

Re:interconnections

[jshriverWVU]

Shouldn't be a problem. Keep in mind libc, bash, etc all make system calls to the kernel. The whole argument of linking basically come about lower down the chain you go. You might write programs that link to libc, but even libc is making system calls to the kernel. BTW big fan of int 0x80h :)

Re:interconnections

[Scarblac]

Not much, probably. Glibc is under the LGPL, and the others aren't linked to the kernel, just build tools. That should be fine.

I don't know if there is code that is linked into kernel binaries that will be under the GPLv3, but I don't think there is.

Re:interconnections

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing that happened with gcc/egcs. There'll be a fork, the side supported by Linus, Red Hat, Novell and IBM will get all the activity, and the FSF side will collapse into endless Debianish squabbling.

Re:interconnections

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a lot. So long as GNU libc remains LGPL (v2 or v3) these tools will work on any OS whatever its licence (which is why all the tools you list are currently available for Windows, *BSD and OSX to name a few).

Re:interconnections

[klingens]

GLIBC is not under GPL. Also, GPL3 software can use GPL2 software without a problem

Re:interconnections

[Dan Ost]

Is that true of software that is strictly GPL2 or just true of software that is "GPL2 or later versions of GPL"?

Re:interconnections

[Scarblac]

The GPLv3 FAQ:

How is GPLv3 compatible with other GNU licenses?
The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you can't combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.

So strictly GPL2 stuff is incompatible.

Re:interconnections

[Mostly a lurker]

Also, GPL3 software can use GPL2 software without a problem

If the license says "GPL Version 2 or later, then you are correct. Some code does not have the "or later", including the Linux kernel as a whole (some pieces are also available under different licenses). The fact is that GPL3 and GPL2 are not compatible licenses. Much GPL2 code can be used with GPL3 only because it is licensed in a way that allows RMS to change the license. No GPL3 code can be inserted into GPL2 code. My opinions are very close to Mr Torvalds'. I think GPL3 is political, a knee jerk reaction to events in the market that RMS and some others are opposed to philosophically. It is a mistake.

Re:interconnections

[Scarblac]

I think GPL3 is political, a knee jerk reaction to events in the market that RMS and some others are opposed to philosophically.

Does the pope shit in the woods?

RMS' personal philosophy of total software freedom is what drove him to creating the FSF, the GPL and GNU in the first place. It's not exactly a surprise that this reflects a little on the license text.

If Torvalds doesn't like that, he should have picked a difference license.

Re:interconnections

[ClosedSource]

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call them UNIX/GNU tools. It's not as if much of this stuff was invented by RMS and GNU developers.

Re:interconnections

[Znork]

"If Torvalds doesn't like that, he should have picked a difference license."

IIRC, he did at first, but was talked into using the GPL. Of course, had he picked a different license it's dubious that Linux would have gained any significant traction in the end.

For all of Linus's abilities as a technical project leader, his judgement and track record on license issues hasnt exactly been spotless.

RMS, however, has been exceedingly clear on exactly what his purpose with the FSF has been, and has been so utterly consistent in his views on freedom that I'd as soon expect the sun to rise in the west as RMS to accept proprietarization in any form.

And heck, most everyone who has read anything about the FSF and places code they're writing under the GPL knows exactly what they're doing, and place it under the GPL for exactly that reason. This is not a reaction to some events' that RMS 'and some others' are philosophically opposed to. This is the natural evolution of the GPL to cope with attempted violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.

Having knowingly placed code under the GPL myself, I'd expect nothing less than for the FSF to continue protecting everyones right to freely use, modify, run and distribute that code and the code of any derivatives.

Re:interconnections

[Ant P.]

Probably the same thing that's currently happening between *BSD and gcc right now.

Re:interconnections

[Ash Vince]

Of course, had he picked a different license it's dubious that Linux would have gained any significant traction in the end.

I'd love to hear your rationale for that statement. I thought alot of companies used linux because of the flexibility it offered. The flexibilty to base a product on it and save alot of effort of developing from scratch. I would have thought that if you get too fussy with regard to the licence and how the code can be used alot of companies will just run away for the sake of avoiding the legal issues, after all coders are cheaper than lawyers.

Or alternatively they decide to risk it, throw the entire licence in the bin and challenge it on a technicality. They then throw huge amounts of money at it until they win. Even the most diehard fan of the US legal system must admit that this is at least a risk. I have certainly heard of more bizarre miscarriages of justice than a licence being binned simply because the people defending the licence were out spent in court.

How exactly does IBM feel about the GPL3? Have they made any public announcements of even tacit support? In a previous slashdot debate someone told me that certain products not aimed at consumers would be exempt from the part of the licence that meant you had to open up your entire products source (with respect to google intranet search boxes - they also contain google proprietary algorithms so you are not allowed to even open the case). I would hate to have to argue in court what a product aimed at consumers was, especially against either Google or IBM's lawyers. And these are just two companies pulled off the top of my head. I bet there are other companies selling linux based devices that are certainly aimed at consumers like cell phones.

The problem is that if a company already has a product in production but not quite on the market they may just risk launching it to see how much it makes. There would be plenty of people who would buy it regardless of it violating the GPL3 if they found it useful.

Re:interconnections

[cyborg_zx]

I'd love to hear your rationale for that statement. I thought alot of companies used linux because of the flexibility it offered. The flexibilty to base a product on it and save alot of effort of developing from scratch.

Indeed but I think the point is that Linux would not have reached that point if it were not for the GPL because it would seem that those who wish to contribute to the idea of producing a free OS prefer the GPL for that end - otherwise one might expect something like OpenBSD to be more popular.

Re:interconnections

[turbidostato]

"I would have thought that if you get too fussy with regard to the licence and how the code can be used alot of companies will just run away"

What you seem to forget is that from day 0 whatever RMS did was "way too fussy"... on the start. It was "way too fussy" to start a "holy war" just because some printer drivers. It was "way too fussy" to start a foundation to cope with his points of views; it was "way too fussy" to look for a distribution license just to cope with his own envision. But, as bad as was the idea of the GPL (how in his sane mind would code for a license that will make your code just to be wide open to the competition? After all, if you want code for the sake of it, you have BSD-like licenses, haven't you?). But on the long run, not only there has been "some" persons and companies that have developed and release under the GPL, but that the GPL is seen as a more corparte-friendly license than others. Now new menaces come to disturb RMS's envision (you can say a lot of things about RMS but one you can't say is that it's easy to change his mind) and his reacting to cope with them and *again* as it was from day 0 a lot of people say that "this time" he really is gone "way too fussy".

Well, maybe. We just need to wait and see (I for one believe that RMS is *again* on the right track).

Re:interconnections

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux will die?!?!

Re:interconnections

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, had he picked a different license it's dubious that Linux would have gained any significant traction in the end.

I'd love to hear your rationale for that statement.

Back then, Minix was better. Minix had a license that was (AFAIR) closer to the one Linus originally used.

After Linux went GPL, lots of developers got interested, and very quickly, Minix was just a spot in the rear-view mirror.

Re:interconnections

[Neil]

Nothing happens. One is permitted to combine separate, incompatibly licensed programs together in a distribution without breaking the licenses, because the FSF regards the distribution as an "aggregate" of the works that comprise it, rather than a single derived work. The licenses only conflict if you combine several incompatibly licensed bodies of code into a single program.

GPLv2, section 2:

[...]

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

[...]

4th discussion draft of GPLv3, section 5:

[...]

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

Re:interconnections

[Sam Douglas]

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call them UNIX/GNU tools. It's not as if much of this stuff was invented by RMS and GNU developers. But it was all written by GNU contributors; the implementations share no code with the 'original' UNIX counterparts. Also the quality and coding standards of GNU software is often a lot higher than the 'original' UNIX counterparts.

In other news...

[Rob T Firefly]

...Linus has announced that although he's always hated marmalade in the past, he's slightly warming up to it after a recent bite of a friend's toast. He has also recently bought a green shirt despite earlier statements about green being his least favorite color, and it seems he currently prefers his eggs cooked slightly less runny than in the past.

Rumors that he is experimenting with a new brand of tube socks are as yet unconfirmed.

Re:In other news...

[TeknoHog]

Rumors that he is experimenting with a new brand of tube socks

For the TCP/IP stack, I presume.

Hot air

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all hot air. GPLv2 is already violated big time. Just look at mplayer's hall of shame.

Companies sell "fast video converters/players" based on code that contains ffmpeg/mplayer banners in the binary. And nobody doesn't do anything.

If FSF/OSDL just sued these companies and from the $10M reward paid the lawyer, itself and contrbuted money to the projects, it would make some sense.

As it is, GPL exists only in the dream world of the average kernel hacker.

Re:Hot air

[Scarblac]

Only the copyright holder(s) can sue. As far as I know, the mplayer people haven't assigned copyright to the FSF, so the FSF isn't involved and couldn't sue if it wanted to.

Mind you, the FSF usually has success by sending their lawyers to talk to infringing companies. As far as I know, that has always worked so far (there was an Eben Moglen interview a while ago that talked about things like this)

Hmm...

[katterjohn]

I'll make my own license... with blackjack... and hookers.

In fact, forget the license.

Re:Hmm...

[rts008]

Can I use your most interesting license?

And add booze?

This sounds like the perfect way to go.

Warming Slowly?

[Blakey Rat]

You'd think he'd be warming a lot quicker with all the flame mails coming in from the GPL fanboys.

Re:Warming Slowly?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Please be more specific about which version's fanboys, as I'm unsure whether i should be flaming you or not for that comment.

Re:Warming Slowly?

[asninn]

Linus *is* a GPL fanboy, you insensitive clod!

Linus uses Ninnle!

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you aware of the Linux distro that Linus himself uses? It's the relatively unknown distribution called Ninnle Linux. Best distro ever!

this is the last month

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

If anyone has comments about discussion draft 4, make them asap. Here's the page where you can see the draft and where you can add your comments:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html

The plan is for the final GPLv3 to be published on June 29th, so comments should be submitted now so that there is still some time for them to be discussed and acted on.

For an explanation on the changes and the motivations of the current draft, see:

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript

Scientists are concerned

[Billosaur]

They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise. This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...

Re:Scientists are concerned

[asserted]

> They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise.

oh noes! think of the penguins! :)

Re:Scientists are concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise. This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...

You need to get laid.

Re:Scientists are concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...

You do realize that the biggest Gas Bag involved in the argument is RMS himself. If you are going to stop the GPL Greenhouse Gas Effect, you do need to shut-down filthy (unwashed) old styled (rhetorically unchallenged/unfettered/uninhibitted) commie sources first.
Save the planet, shut down RMS.

Modded as flamebait, ever growing proof that the GPL crowd, and GPL3 crowd in particular, have not capacity to laugh at themselves. A sure sign of mental illness.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Runaway Linus Warming!!!

[Dunbal]

Rubbish, linus isn't warming. This is just part of a repeating cycle every 800 years or so, no biggie. Blame Sun.

Re:Runaway Linus Warming!!!

[WED Fan]

How dare you minimize the plight of a warming Linus by using the word "slight". You are trying to marginalize those of us who are truly concerned by this.

John Leach saw it coming

[molukki]

This reminds me of this Everybody Loves Eric S. Raymond cartoon

Are v2 and v3 compatible?

[91degrees]

There's going to be a lot of code that people don't want under one version of the licence or another. How does the GPL handle this? If the Linux kernel stays at GPL2, then will this mean we are unable to use GPL3 licenced code in the kernel?

Re:Are v2 and v3 compatible?

[Scarblac]

v2 and v3 are incompatible. Code that was licensed "version 2 or later", as intended, is fine (that will simply be upgraded to "version 3 or later").

Unfortunately Linus chose not to do that, way back when, so it won't be possible to use Linux kernel code in GPLv3 code, or the other way around.

Relicensing not an issue

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Linus doesn't have to relicense the entire kernel to impose the new GPL-3 restrictions on the kernel.

Since it looks like GPL-2 code may be freely integrated into GPL-3 software, all Linus has to do is start adding GPL-3 code to the kernel. These small additions will have the effect of relicensing the kernel without affecting licensing of individual modules that Linus doesn't own the copyright to. Then anybody who wants to use Linux will have to stick with the GPL-3 restrictions, or remove the GPL-3 code before building or distributing.

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[KarmaMB84]

I'm afraid that would actually be a GPLv2 violation...

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Which section?

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's this one as GPLv3 anti tivoization clause adds some further restrictions over GPLv2 license.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[yorugua]

Hmmm.. the man is saying:

I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.

that translates to me as "No thanks, GPLv3". Also, the man says:

All I've heard are shrill voices about "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)

which that translates to me as : "Why would I move to a license that forbids what I think it's ok to do?". if that's correct, with all that in mind, then I'd say we are ready for a GPLv2 kernel/GPLv3&v2 userspace. Is that a problem?

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[AnyoneEB]

Would it be allowable to release a program with mixed GPLv2 and GPLv3 code as long as one was clear on which parts were which (possibly simply offering a link to the GPLv2 upstream) and having them licensed differently? Or does that not work?

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[harry666t]

> ...GPLv2 kernel/GPLv3&v2 userspace.

You meant GPL2/3, LGPL, BSD, Apache, PHP, public domain, Python license... And so on...

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[yorugua]

exactly... that's a manifestation of "freedom" :)

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The section that states you can't put any additional restrictions on distribution of source and binary. GPLv3 has additional restrictions of distribution(thou shalt not use DRM, etc), and thus, it's incompatible with a straight GPLv2 license. There is no such problem with code licensed with GPLv2 or later, but that doesn't apply to most of Linux.

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[turbidostato]

"Would it be allowable to release a program with mixed GPLv2 and GPLv3 code as long as one was clear on which parts were which"

No, it isn't.

Still, when Linus wanted to move into the GPLv3 I don't think there will be any problem. It is not as if he didn't just exactly that in the past. You know, once upon a time, Linux kernel was "GPLv2 or later", but one day he decided to go "GPLv2 only". While the commiters were surely much less than today, the problem was qualitatively the same. And the solution is the same too: he will just announce that he will move the license so whoever that doesn't like it can get in contact with him. If there's no opossition, the license change just will take place overnight.

Re:Relicensing not an issue

[Kjella]

if that's correct, with all that in mind, then I'd say we are ready for a GPLv2 kernel/GPLv3&v2 userspace. Is that a problem?

If the kernel was GPLv3, you'd have a bloody hard time implementing DRM on top of that as you pretty much need a top-to-bottom chain of trusted layers. GPLv3 userspace applications will keep that code out of DRM'd applications, but it won't prevent other applications from forming a trust chain. But even if Linus thought the GPLv3 was the best thing since sliced bread, there's a helluva lot more people that'd have to agree.

Sure wish Sun would go GPLv3

[Anonymous Coward]

Solaris is a generally superb O.S.. While it certainly has its nits (especially at the user level), I see that Sun is trying to address the main issues.

If Sun were to adopt GPLv3 (and improve the management involved with trying to develop its user community), it would be an extremely serious challenge to Linux. As a Linux developer, I for one would very seriously consider switching to it. It would depend exactly on how they ran things, as Linus does a better job there, currently.

But in any case, it would give the Linux community some very serious competition. Which frankly, it could use. And in the end, customers would benefit.

Re:Sure wish Sun would go GPLv3

[ClosedSource]

I think Linux is already too far ahead for Solaris to catch up.

Nope.. Typical for slashdot... you are incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv2 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses to side step the requirements.

GPLv3 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses, contracting with someone else to provide a discriminatory patent license, or using DRM to prevent people from executing the rights you are required to grant them.

So, the list of specifically excluded funny business has expanded somewhat. No one should claim this as a shock because the GPLv2 includes a delightful preamble which explains the purpose of the license, and the changes in v3 are perfectly in line with that purpose. Beyond that, GPLv3 has also had a lot of linguistic overhaul so it is a much clearer document overall.

Question :S

[rupert0]

If the kernel developers don't move to GPLv3, are they going to stay with GPLv2 or will they eventually release a new license? LGPL (Linux GPL)?

Re:Question :S

[Scarblac]

It might be a good thing, if Torvalds really isn't interested in the goals the FSF is pursuing. Perhaps start with the exact same text, but with another name (that would still be GPLv2 compatible so it would be a trivial change, but one that would make the situation clear).

The problem now is that this is supposed to be a FSF discussion, about how best to achieve their goals by changing their license, using the process designed for changing it. Any affected parties can comment, and they do - I love the color codes on the drafts that show all the comments people had. All FSF code and much third party code is licensed under "version 2 or later" of the GPL just to make this process possible. It's how it's supposed to go.

Torvalds wrote a great kernel, but he's not really a party in the discussion. He famously doesn't really care about FSF politics, and he chose to opt out of that whole business a long time ago by using GPLv2 only for Linux. He shouldn't really be involved in this discussion, but he's very vocal, and people listen to him because of who he is.

So yes, perhaps it would be better for both sides if Linus renamed the license he uses to Linux GPL. Less confusion.

Re:Question :S

[petrus4]

It might be a good thing, if Torvalds really isn't interested in the goals the FSF is pursuing. Perhaps start with the exact same text, but with another name (that would still be GPLv2 compatible so it would be a trivial change, but one that would make the situation clear).

If Torvalds were to come out with his own license for the kernel, then you can bet money that version 4 of the GPL would just happen to be mysteriously incompatible with it. Some branch of the zealots (probably the Debian project's kernel people) would fork the kernel under the GPL 4, Linus would be sidelined, and that would be that.

Re:Question :S

[Scarblac]

That's silly. The kernel is already licensed under the GPLv2 only, which is already incompatible to the GPLv3. Tberefore forking to a compatible license is also impossible.

Re:Question :S

[Xlucid]

People listen to him because he (with help) managed to produce a GPL'd OS kernel where Stallman and the FSF (with help) failed dismally.

It's not a non-issue

[Luft08091950]

"And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it."

I don't think the Novell/Microsoft deal is a non-issue. If taken in context it clearly shows one of the strategies Microsoft is taking in an effort to destroy its competition.

Microsoft floated a balloon with the SCO litigation. I have no doubt that if investigated it would come out that Microsoft encouraged SCO and helped fund the lawsuit.

Let's look at the strategy for a second.
1. Offer a license for IP that is never specified.
2. If people don't pay protection money sue. Again without specificity.
3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.

Let's look at the Microsoft Strategy now:
1. Offer a cross licensing deal for IP that is never specified.
2. If people don't pay the protection money then???
3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.

Point number three is telling. Microsoft is not interested in having the code fixed if there are legitimate claims. They want Open Source and Linux in particular to die. Once again they seek to DESTROY their competition.

These patent covenants that they are seeking is a very BIG deal.

Doesn't help competitors a lot, either

[SanityInAnarchy]

I mean, sure, it depends what field you're in. For example, GPL-ing Java certainly helps Sun's competitors -- I guess in theory, some wicked-cool feature of Java can now be ported to Mono.

However, take something like Drupal. Pretty much any company implementing Drupal (or another open-source CMS) on their website is going to have to write some custom modules, or at least a custom theme. If they release their modules back to the community, so what?

For example: I used to work here. They are starting to use Drupal in places, and one thing I was planning to do (which never got finished) was create an easy way to take their Word documents (very well-styled, well-formatted Word documents) and convert them into HTML, for use in Drupal, via FCKEditor.

Now, if you've seen their homepage, you can see very clearly that they are in the magazine business, and the blogging/ranting business. I suppose, in theory, they have competition, who might theoretically benefit from any changes they made. But I was told, in very simple terms, that I could GPL and release whatever the hell I wanted. It's their content that's valuable to them; they were only paying for me to develop software because there wasn't any out there that did what they wanted.

If I help their competition run their website, it really doesn't matter at all to them.

Of course, if I licensed some of their articles under Creative Commons, it would kill them.

Not a Practical Plan

[mpapet]

Just because Linus doesn't want to expend any effort whatsoever regarding legal issues doesn't justify his position.

In part, I agree with his decision to ignore legal issues. And I also see how it's possible to say that tivoization hasn't harmed GPL project diversity.

Linus may be okay with Tivo's case because he can undo their GPL evil and he's still a fundamental part of a whole ecosystem. IMHO that's a short-sighted though, because the GPL acts as kind of a legal conservancy, protecting ideas.

Re:Not a Practical Plan

[ClosedSource]

I wonder with all the crap that Linus has to put up with, if he had to do it over again, would he just go with the BSD license?

I'm waiting for v. 4.0. Anything 3.0 sux !!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for v. 4.0. Anything 3.0 sux !! And isn't it sweet that Linus has left the safety of his blanket and it gravitating to v. 3.0. Peer pressure at work !!

idiot ..

[rs232]

"The FSF troll army .. water torture .. chipping away .. cultists .. pressure .. cave .. minion .. drones ..

How can you post without once referencing what 'Linus' actually said, instead of a gratuitous personal and down right offencive on Alan Cox, Stallman and the FSF.

Re:Linus will fall into line

Re:idiot ..

[everphilski]

instead of a gratuitous personal and down right offencive on Alan Cox, Stallman and the FSF.

says emacsuser@linuxmail.org

What???

[Luft08091950]

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed." Isn't being able to "use those changes" the whole point of every verison of GPL? Your statements don't make any sense to me.

What's with this fagged up version of GPLv3?

[Wiseman1024]

Why do we want a watered down, sugar-free version of GPLv3? It's either the real thing -- a license to fight back evil corporate practices, or GPLv2 -- a license that fails its purpose which is to ensure your freedom. Something in the middle will still be a failure, and will cause trouble.

There was no end

[ClosedSource]

"But that was precisely the fear with GPLv2: that no company would touch it because that would give their competitors and advantage. But in the end, companies realized that the GPL levels the playing field, so although your competitor can use the code, you get to have his code modifications, too. And you're getting a community helping improve your code. So lots of company are now using GPLv2 code."

Many companies still don't license their code under the current GPL so it's not as if the "fear" that companies might not use the code was entirely baseless. Part of the problem is that making your code public can provide a lot of information to your competitors that they can use against you without having to accept the GPL or contribute anything back.

Why Linux can't be easily changed to GPL3

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Even if Linus completely loved GPL3, there are considerable barriers to changing Linux to GPL3.

Remember folks that Linux is the result of contributions by thousands of people (one of whom happens to be Linus). Those contributions have been made under GPL2. The only person that can change the licensing is the contributor. The rights to assign licensing have not been signed over to Linus so he has no authority to change the licensing on all Linux code.

Unless someone can come up with a clean way to address this issue, Linux will continue under GPL2 regardless of whether or not GPL3 is better.

Re:Why Linux can't be easily changed to GPL3

[Anonymous Coward]

gpl2 is completely 100% compatible with gpl3 so there is no problem. the only added verbiage on gpl3 is that they can't use the code and proprietarize it through the use of drm.

if linus torvalds decided to license new code to gpl3, it would not step on any toes of the contributors of gpl2 code, but it only stops the newly licensed portion of the code to be used in a proprietary mean. if linus distributes his new version of linux, parts of the code is still gpl2, but the new code is gpl3.

it's like porting bsd code to gpl. the original part of the code is still bsd, but the new additions are under gpl.

Re:Why Linux can't be easily changed to GPL3

[HeroreV]

Those contributions have been made under GPL2.

That's not true. Many contributions have been made under just "the GPL", or "version 2 or later of the GPL", etc. Not every contribution was limited to version 2 of the GPL.

Re:Why Linux can't be easily changed to GPL3

[statusbar]

That is one of the big legal problems with linux in general. Many unreachable copyright holders.

--jeffk++

Re:Why Linux can't be easily changed to GPL3

[jhol13]

The way:
1. Get "the signature" (allowing license change) from as many developers as possible.
2. Those who do not want or cannot be contacted:
2a. Identify the code they wrote and rewrite it. Exactly like writing around SCO/Microsoft IP/patents would have happened.

Not easy, not "clean", but doable.

Do you understand at all...

[Eric Damron]

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes..."

Do you understand Open Source at all?? The WHOLE POINT IS TO LET OTHER'S USE YOUR CODE!!

Man, I'm beginning to wonder how many astro-turfers are crawling around slash-dot.

Re:Do you understand at all...

[TenYearOldWithCredit]

This kind of view IMHO is detrimental to OSS. There are markets ( such as the one I am in ) where software itself has almost no intrinsic or marketable value- but the software is what sells an end-to-end system.

Many managers I've dealt with see no difference between OSS and GPL - and we cannot use GPL. Making all our code available as "derivative" would kill us. Which is why I and my team frequently find ourselves re-inventing something that exists under GPL to keep the rest of our codebase secure ( otherwise we'd go out of buisiness ). I would much rather have my team spend N weeks optimizing and fixing bugs in "GPL'd piece of code A" - and put those changes on a publically available server - and notify owner - than to spend the time reinventing.

I've always seen the spirit of free software to be "use this code - give us back your changes". But when it turns into "use this code - we own everything else you do too" it's getting silly.

Let's face it - the Linux kernel and it's driver subsystem provides the ability to receive user input and draw on the screen. There are a whole bunch of people out there who would quite happily tell anyone who'll listen that if I write a E-POS terminal for Linux - I have to release the code because it's functionality is "derived" from the kernel.

I call bull-****.

And as for telling a company live TiVO that their DVR must function as a PC is just ridiculous.

Service companies ( IBM, Redhat et al ) can use GPL within a buisiness model - but all the other companies who would love to help are being kept out of the game by the GPL.

----Hear that sound?? - now you know what karma sounds like burning ;-)

Re:Do you understand at all...

[Just Some Guy]

Do you understand Open Source at all?? The WHOLE POINT IS TO LET OTHER'S USE YOUR CODE!!

Nitpick: that's actually the point of Free Software. The point of Open Source is to let everyone see your software and tell you how to fix it without having to actually let them use it.

Re:Do you understand at all...

[rajafarian]

Man, I'm beginning to wonder how many astro-turfers are crawling around slash-dot.

I wonder if Microsoft puts astroturfers in their Research budget. (I'm still trying to decide why, with billions of dollars in research every year, they still suck, and never truly innovate.)

Re:Do you understand at all...

[Just Some Guy]

There are markets ( such as the one I am in ) where software itself has almost no intrinsic or marketable value- but the software is what sells an end-to-end system.

That's the perfect place to go all-GPL. Since you're not actually selling the software, just including it as part of the whole system, what benefit do you get from keeping it proprietary?

And as for telling a company live TiVO that their DVR must function as a PC is just ridiculous.

No one anywhere has ever told TiVo that their DVR must function as a PC. It's their DVR. However, once they sell it to a customer, it's now that customer's DVR to do with as they see fit, including using it as a PC or a hammer or a paperweight. I see no way in which TiVo has a legal or moral right to prevent their customers from hacking it to pieces if they want to, just so long as those customers don't distribute the proprietary bits without authorization.

Re:Do you understand at all...

[TenYearOldWithCredit]

In the above case, it's the software ( or rather the functionality and user-interface ) which is the product differentiator. It's what sells our product over some other guys - the hardware is easily cloned. So we'd spend the time/effort/money to develop the product - and some guy in China makes the same thing next day without investment.

So no - we're not selling the software - but the system doesn't sell without it - and somebody has to write it - and if it was GPL'd we'd lose any innovation benefit.

As for the TiVO thing - I probably didn't explain myself very well - sure the customer has the right to do whatever he damn well pleases with something he paid for - no argument there. But the whole point of the product is to provide the end-user with functionality and keep the content owners wishes too - and for reasons similar to above - obviously they didn't want to provide the hardware and a reference software implementation, and let people bypass their buisiness.

Of course you can do what you like with your property, but the manufacturer is/should-be under no obligation to make is easy for you if they chose not to.

GPL2 and GPL3 just don't work for me in the embedded world. Desktop computing etc is a different matter (until some bright spark decides that anything produced whilst using an O/S is a derived product at least.)

Doesn't bother me too much either way - but I'm sure I'm not alone in that a fair portion of my paid time could be spent improving GPL projects - but not at the expense of making a living.

I think OSS needs to have a more commercially friendly face. Yes, unpaid guys working in their own time do some wonderful things - they also churn out a lot of trash ( look at how many dead or non functioning sourceforge projects you can find ). Paid people, tend to have to finish what they started, and do it well, or they quickly become unpaid people.

I also find it funny, that the same crowd who get really upset when somebody says "Microsoft Office" for "wordprocessor" and "IE" for "internet" - find it okay to promote a mindset which thinks "OSS" == "GPL". I bet there are lots of people who have GPLd code that didn't even read the GPL itself, just made an assumption.

Pure commercialism, and the exploitation of OSS, is definately worth fighting against - but not by going so far the other way as GPL ( I hesitate to use the word communist, but it comes close ).

Re:Do you understand at all...

[Billly Gates]

Bill Gates referred to what you are talking as viral licensing meaning it infects everything it touches. Sun was smart and put a java classpath exception with the gpl release of java for that reason.

There is the copyleft license which is OSS and includes the right to link in proprietary applications. I am thinking of developing software for my own use and perhaps licensing it or selling it if I feel its actual worth anything. BUt I will only use copyleft, MIT, or a BSD licensed code.

I used to use FreeBSD before Linux finally became stable and ready and I loved the BSD license. If you want to contribute and start a FOSS great! If you want to develop a program financially well great too! Its the most free license as it protects work and you can do whatever you want with the code.

Re:Do you understand at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Man, I'm beginning to wonder how many astro-turfers are crawling around slash-dot." ...wondering is the beginning of enlightenment...

So?

[HotBBQ]

There's so much noise about GPLv3 and other copyright issues these days. I don't want to diminish the importance of good licensing practices, but I just frickin' want my X-Fi to work, games to run, and eye candy to drool over in Linux. I don't particulary care what license the work gets done under. I suspect most people don't either; they just want their machines to work.

Re:So?

[msuarezalvarez]

The fact that most people do not care is absolutely irrelevant. If no one had ever cared, you'd be running Windows or some thing similar.

Re:So?

[Just Some Guy]

I don't particulary care what license the work gets done under. I suspect most people don't either; they just want their machines to work.

RMS became a Free Software advocate because he wasn't allowed to make a printer driver work. That right there's irony.

Re:So?

[HotBBQ]

I am running Windows and Linux. I have too if I want to play most video games.

Ballmer calls this "ridiculous"

[game kid]

In an interview with the New York Times, Ballmer calls this "ridiculous" and says "I LOVE this environment!!! WOOOOO!!!"

Re:Linus will fall into line

[fsmunoz]

The BSD troll army is however smaller, and seems to like WoW :D

Rational Humans

[MrCopilot]

I so love seeing rational human beings re-evaluate their opinions. Comments like these are what keep Linus in my list of Heroes.

RMS is on that list as well for the same reasons. The new version of GPL v3 is far and away better than the earlier drafts.

I think changing the Kernel license to GPLv3 is technically almost an impossible task given the number of contributors. I do believe it is the way to go, I just don't really see it happening.

Re:Nope.. Typical for slashdot... you are incorrec

[vertinox]

A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes

Huh? That is how GPLv2 is supposed to work as of now.

Re:Runaway Linus Warming!!!

[WED Fan]

Good Gods. Linus is warming. Quick, someone offset his carbon. Save the Linus. Why weren't we told this before? What is the Government going to do to stop this? What major economic activity do we need to sabotage to stop Linus from warming?

Modded as "troll"? I'm trying to decide if the GPL3 crowd, or the global warming crowd are the ones without the ability to laugh at themselves.

Either way, both groups a just a hair away from being certified insane, and all their toys, with edges and corners, taken away from them.

A query re Tivoisation - Is it required by law?

[Sesostris III]

A quick query. Stallman at http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html seems to imply that DVD players must be restriced by law (The DMCA). Is this so? If it is then, I can hardly see that Tivo are at fault for locking their product.

Given this, I get the impression that Stallman's argument is that this is of no concern of his! Either GPLv3 code must be non-locked-down, or not used at all.

Which is fair enough. Tivo will have to use software for which there is no restriction on them locking it down. Windows?

Which begs the question; are there applications which, under law, it will not be possible to use GPLv3 code in implementing, in that to do so would be either to fall foul of the DMCA, or the GPLv3?

Personally, I would rather Tivo used Linux, even if locked down, rather than Windows. Even if locked down, the source code would still be viewable (and auditable), whereas with windows...? Surely some freedom is better than none?

Sesostris III

But companies were the ones taking the lead.

[pavon]

It gives companies incentives to help out, where I think v3 makes the GPL less attractive to companies which will hurt it in the long run imho. I have never understood this argument. If you look at the corporate-created open-source licenses like the CDDL, MPL, CPL, and ASL, in every case one of the major reasons that they are incompatible with the GPLv2 is that they contain CYA protections against patents that the GPL didn't. Many of them are still incompatible with GPLv3 because they go even farther with their patent protections than the FSF was willing to go with the GPLv3.

The various companies that are contributing code under open source licenses are the ones pushing for greater patent protection in the first place so why would they be upset that the GPL now includes it? If anything it might encourage them to use the GPL rather than their own home-grown license which would be a very positive move.

A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed. Sure they can; plenty of companies do. More to the point, the GPLv3 doesn't change this one bit. I cannot think of a single company that releases currently software under the GPLv2 and then attempts to prevent its competitors from using that software by playing games with patents or DRM. There is nothing preventing a competing company from taking Tivo's code (the parts released under the GPLv2) and reusing it in their competing product. The people that are limited by these actions are the ones that can't afford to build their own hardware from scratch - ie the consumers.

You geeks have no idea what the real flames are.

[Anonymous Coward]

E.g.: Send Linus back to Finland for stealing American jobs! America is for AMericans!!!!1!!11

--
Above is a joke, by the way.

Enlighten us, please

[Mariner28]

they rip off just about everyones proprietory tech wholesale via their codec stealing tech.

Care to enlighten us to how they rip off everyone's proprietary technology? I know mplayer can use native Windows codecs, but I don't think they actually incorporated that code into their product. Is it illegal to point my copy of mplayer to a legally licensed copy of Windows on an NTFS partition on my PC's hard drive?

When Linus dies

[ipstacks]

Who decides the fate of Linux when Linus is retired or otherwise? Does that person get the decision because they hold a position in a foundation or will it be a committee? How would someone get in this position? An election of some sort? I can see the corruption coming.

Re:When Linus dies

[jshriverWVU]

My vote would probably be Alan Cox. In the even that happened I would expect there to be a vote among the top kernel developers/maintainers. Question is, there does need to be a defined "congress" of sorts for the kernel.

Re:When Linus dies

[slash.duncan]

The users decide the fate of Linux... now and when Linus dies. They do so by deciding which of the Linux trees they use, if they compile it from source, or by letting their distribution choose, if they use the distribution kernel.

There's nothing saying that the Linus kernel is the only one now, and in fact, it's not. However, "mainline" has been defined by common usage to refer to the Linus or Linus blessed maintainer kernel, with other trees being lessor forks.

When Linus "retires" (he doesn't have to die, tho that would do it), as now, the choice remains with those that do the using. Even distribution kernels get used by more or fewer people, thus affecting the choice of the community as a whole.

In fact, it hasn't happened yet, so the question has yet to be resolved. However, some fairly safe predictions can be made based on what has happened with other projects, xfree86/xorg, gcc/egcs/gcc, cdtools/cdrkit, etc. Despite the fact that there are few legal restrictions preventing forking, there are very strong cohesive forces as well, and in general, the community tends to form a strong consensus agreement and for the most part, all end up going the same way, not because they have to, but because it's more efficient that way, so forks just tend to die out until there's only one dominant candidate left.

Now, Linus tends to have a generally uncommon mix of talents for a geek. He's a great coder but certainly not the greatest. However, his strength is his social consensus building skills. Very few at his technical level have that kind of social skills, and it's that, as much as anything else, that has made Linux as a kernel the dominant force it is. It would therefore be a SERIOUS loss to lose Linus, and I expect the community would be rather weaker for some time as a result, but it'd survive. A previous reply already mentioned Alan Cox. There's also Andrew Morton. At this point, I'd guess one or the other of them would take the informal (because that's what it is, even with Linus) lead, likely they'd work in tandem much as Linus and Andrew do at this point, discussion on LKML would be even more lively than usual for a few months, a few distributions or kernel trees might diverge a bit further than usual for awhile, but life would go on. Once Linus was gone and that was a fact, consensus would fairly quickly build behind a new leader.

What's a possibly more interesting question to me, is if the kernel doesn't eventually move to GPL3 (it could, but it'd take a definitive agreement from major contributors to do it, and several years, during which an increasing portion of the code would be dual-licensed GPL2/3 until the last of the GPL2 only code was removed/rewritten, so the GPL2 could be dropped), and the GNU tools do (a given), along with the OpenSolaris kernel, what might happen then, especially if the patent thing begins to force the issue on GPL2? It's possible, tho too early to predict, that GNU/OpenSolaris may become the new Linux, with Linux-the kernel eventually sidelined (/not/ dead), much like the various BSDs today. It could certainly make for an interesting few years in FLOSS-land, that's for SURE!

Duncan

Re:When Linus dies

[G Morgan]

All this fiddling about with GPLv3 and other nonsense when the real battle has been ignored. I put it to you fellow OSS advocates that we need the secret of immortality so that Linus may rule supreme for all time.

more like:

[rajafarian]

GPL: If you distribute GPL software, you have to give the people to whom you distribute such GPL software exactly the same rights that YOU HAD WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE SOFTWARE.

GPL3: What part of what we said did you not understand? Do we have to spell it out for you? Very well, I guess we will.

"Real" freedom is not exhibited by GPL

[AHumbleOpinion]

Real freedom will be when everyone has to use only free licenses.

The GPL is not a free as in freedom license, it is restrictive. You are confused due to the fact that the restrictions are benevolent in nature to a rather large segment of the community. Don't confuse benevolence and freedom, they are not the same.

Re:"Real" freedom is not exhibited by GPL

[ozmanjusri]

The GPL is not a free as in freedom license, it is restrictive.

This FUD gets trotted out at every discussion of the GPL, and it's always modded up by the MS whores.

The GPL is free as in freedom and preserves that freedom for users. The only people who are restricted by the GPL are those who seek to make software less free.

Re:"Real" freedom is not exhibited by GPL

[annodomini]

All of the restrictions in the GPL are aimed at preserving everyone's freedom to use, modify, and distribute in question. The problem is that we have laws limiting people's freedom (copyright laws), and byproducts of how software distribution works that also limit user's freedoms (binary compilation leave the product the end user can use as something different than what is required to realistically be able to modify it). The GPL works within that restrictive copyright regime to make sure that it is never used to restrict a given work, and also to make sure that binary-only distribution doesn't effectively restrict modification of that work.

This is similar to how we have laws against kidnapping. Sure, you could claim that those laws restrict someone's freedom, because they can't kidnap someone, but really they are laws that preserve freedom by not allowing anyone to take away anyone else's freedom. Now, I wouldn't claim that copyright is as bad as kidnapping, but the basic principle is the same; you sometimes need to limit the freedom to take freedom from others.

Re:"Real" freedom is not exhibited by GPL

[TuringTest]

The GPL is not a free as in freedom license, it is restrictive. This comes from the school of thought that assumes "freedom==lack of restrictions". It's unfortunate that this school of thought is internally inconsistent, since freedom for one person always implies a restriction for others - no one is allowed to act in a way that interferes with that person's freedom.

Re:"Real" freedom is not exhibited by GPL

[asninn]

Yeah... and we don't live in a true democracy because we've got inalienable rights that we (by means of an elected government) cannot legally take away, either. Right?

Re:"Real" freedom is not exhibited by GPL

[Brotherred]

...""Writing on the Linux Kernel Developers mailing list yesterday, Torvalds responded when a developer wrote that he (Torvalds) "was quite impressed with the toned down version of the final draft of GPLv3." I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the disaster that were the earlier drafts."">....... ........""All I've heard are shrill voices about "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push the GPLv3)................."" Linus Torvolds has never believed in digital freedom and still does not. To him the people that pick their poison of a DVR between Tivo, Dishnetwork, and Direct TV do really have enough choice. Which as most any one knows are all hacked GNU+Linux set top boxes. I have a friend that can not legally drop in a new hard drive in his DVR. His perspective of the kernel of a lack of freedom to do what he needs to do and Linus says that this situation is okey. Anyone that can say that such a situation should exist just makes me very very angry. Honestly how is that the freedom that so many of us enjoy with our GNU+Linux PC's??? I am really very much at a loss. Can some one explain this "FREEDOM" to me. This really makes me sick.

Don't extend GPL'd Code...

[Eric Damron]

It is true that when people say "Open Source" they are primarily thinking of GPL'd code. There are other Open Source licenses and the BSD license may be what you're looking for if you want to use other people's code without giving anything back. I wouldn't call that "helping" however.

If you write code that links to GPL'd code you must release that code under the GPL but if your code does not link to GPL'd code you can keep it proprietary if you wish. Further, if you want to link to something like the KDE libraries which are released under the GPL you can still purchase a license from Troll Tech (the copyright owners) that will allow you to keep the code base closed.

I know people developing code using Mono which is a Linux implementation of some of the ECMA/ISO standards that Microsoft uses in its .NET technologies. Mono allows them to keep their source closed.

So there are ways to develop programs that run on Linux without opening your source. If you don't want to give back code then don't extend GPL'd code.

Re:Don't extend GPL'd Code...

[zippthorne]

It's not that he doesn't want to give up code. He actually wants to use and contribute to the GPL project. He just doesn't want to give up the whole #! because of that. So instead of using GPL code for part of the project, and contributing improvements to the code he takes (not to mention saving himself the time of creating that code from scratch), he takes the only option available to him: totally proprietary code.

Everyone's licenses are satisfied, but there are a few inefficiencies: he has to spend longer than he should have to reinventing the wheel, and the community misses out on whatever improvements he would've made to the wheel.

The entire post was simply lamenting those inefficiencies.

Re:Don't extend GPL'd Code...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't he feed off BSD'd code then? You don't have to rerelease modifications of that under the BSD license, and that seems to be his big problem. If he wanted to actually open source the code, then the GPL would be a better choice because you can let your competitors work for you to make more code that they would have to open source the modified version of your code or face a lawsuit from your company for copyright infringement.

GPL got to the popularity it has as an open source license BECAUSE you are forced to share the code under the GPL. It is popular because it IS a 'cancer,' unlike the BSD or MIT license. Even Apple uses some modified BSD'd code in Mac OS X, but they don't give it back to the community. Anyone modifying GPL'd code is forced to give the source code out because of the license.

Re:Don't extend GPL'd Code...

[TenYearOldWithCredit]

Having other licenses don't help ( hell I can just make my own ) when "GPL" is such a pervasive ( and sometimes misleading ) term that it gets used by "default" and locks out commercial use.

I am NOT talking about taking somebody elses code and giving nothing back - I am talking about using OSS as a part of a complete system and recontributing all buxfixes - optimizations, ideas to that OSS code without giving away the rest of the product.

The alternative is to re-invent the OSS code too - so the community loses another pair of willing hands on a project - and I lose time rewriting something that's been done before.

This to me is OSS shooting itself in the foot. We've allowed a culture where GPL is the one-true-license, but GPL is increasingly a political statement of unworkable goals IMHO.

Re:Runaway Linus Warming!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I once told a girl that she was a hell of a lot better than the disaster I had been with before.

She drove over my mailbox and I haven't seen her since.

Totally agree

[thrill12]

... although large corporations will not (especially large corporations in the embedded world). They will protest and feel like they are pushed in a direction that means a certain loss. I think that is good however, because it only *seems* that way. In the end, when GPL V3 has been in effect for a few years, has covered Linux, and has dealt some blows to unwilling device vendors that thought 'they could get away with it' - but also saw device vendors that will agree with conforming to the rules set forth by V3 - the (embedded) world will be a better place.
 
It will mean that more developers are able to play the game of hacking a device, more innovation, more interest in beta-programs - and in the end the big corporations will benefit, because it means that they gain more employees that are proficient in their (former hidden) proprietary technologies. There will still be proprietary in a device, and it will still be hidden to the outside world, but it will no longer hinder you to use the device to its fullest.

Re:Totally agree

[jshriverWVU]

Well said, wish I had mod points to +5 you. Agree

Re:Totally agree

[Short Circuit]

I think that is good however, because it only *seems* that way. In the end, when GPL V3 has been in effect for a few years, has covered Linux, and has dealt some blows to unwilling device vendors that thought 'they could get away with it' - but also saw device vendors that will agree with conforming to the rules set forth by V3 - the (embedded) world will be a better place. Given the choice, then, embedded and mobile manufacturers will switch to Windows CE or Windows XP Embedded. In the last six months, I've encountered far more cases of embedded Windows than embedded Linux. In fact, I've only identified one case of embedded Linux, where I've identified at least fifteen classes of cases of embedded Windows across several major chains and hospitals.

Frankly, this is ludicrous. Linux was a fairly mature embedded platform long before Microsoft came up with their offerings, yet Microsoft seems to have most of the market today. Then there's QNX, but the software for those systems isn't typically visible.

If Linus switches the kernel to GPL v3, he'll be killing what hold Linux still has on mobile and embedded markets.

Re:Totally agree

[sumdumass]

I think your missing something. the current wording of the GPLv3 says you cannot partake in the freedoms the GPL protects if you are part of a deal similar to the Novell-microsoft deal.

Another thing is that OSS isn't at a place where is can replace most proprietary programs for users and companies who are dependent on them for whatever reason. This means there will be a demand for microsoft products even if it is just to use the same accounting product they have used for the last three years. But more importantly, it causes a problem with what I am about to describe.

Imagine Microsoft crafting a portion of the windows license so that it provides a covenant not to sue for violations of their IP in works you use or distribute as long as you didn't place it there or continue after it was know. This would in essence make anyone who purchased a Microsoft product with this in the license a mini novell sans the payment portion of the Anti-Novell clauses. Now suppose Microsoft offers the same product without the covenant for 10 times the cost of the product with it.

MS would have effectivly made anyone who buys their products at regular costs a mini-novell and they would be barred from distributing GPLv3 software. But this doesn't have to be limited to just MS, any third party vendor could do the same relatively easily. These people who cannot break away from proprietary apps that only run on MS products could be faced with a situation where they cannot use the GPLv3 offerings in their products and the would be denied some of the freedoms the GPL attempt to protect. Or, if they wanted to stick with the GPLv3 they would face a severe economic hurdle in attempting to do so. I call this the self destruct button that is built into the GPLv3. It's damage is limited by the people who press it but I can see where the right people could cause a lot of harm.

All the GPLv3's anti-novell clause needs is a little tweaking or removal to stop this from happening. But in the case that you are describing, what would happen if after

"In the end, when GPL V3 has been in effect for a few years, has covered Linux, and has dealt some blows to unwilling device vendors that thought 'they could get away with it' - but also saw device vendors that will agree with conforming to the rules set forth by V3 - the (embedded) world will be a better place."

MS or some other vendor does as I described and created a bunch of mini-Novells who cannot distribute GPLv3 software? I mean OEMs who distribute MS OSes would be out, any company that had to purchase one of the licenses who didn't pay 10 times the costs would be out, private users who need to make sure Dad is happy and can play MS golf or whatever would be out. All the people who just use MS products for playing games would be out. They all could no longer distribute their modifications, fixes, improvements or the code itself. It in effect defeats the purpose of the GPL and some of the freedom's it is attempting to protect.

They call this the final draft. I have been warning people and the FSF for a while now about the wording and the problems a third party could cause. I hope this isn't the last draft because a lot of people still "need" programs and stuff that FOSS doesn't properly replace yet. It would suck to have three fourths of the world disconnected from the values of FOSS and GPLed software and possibly cause a bunch of older GPLv2 forks playing catch up but are now years behind MS in order to keep these opportunities and freedoms available to companies and users who are stuck using proprietary applications. Oh yea, And since those proprietary apps in question would run on MS software, you can forget about them releasing any linux versions that would need to use GPLv3 libraries or components. It would have just made any good faith effort of making a linux version of that app several time difficult and possibly more expensive.

I can see a lot of problems everyone is over looking because they are too busy patting themselves in the back for taking it to Novell. Now MS can strike at the heart of the community with relative ease. The GPLv3 provides the destruction button, and it is a matter of time before it gets used. (even if it isn't MS using it)

Re:Totally agree

[samkass]

You are being extremely optimistic (one might say naive). My guess? Every single significant GPLv2 project is going to fork in the coming year and have divergent GPL2 and GPL3 versions which aren't compatible with each other on a license basis. TiVo will continue to develop on the GPLv2 branch of all the projects and continue to do exactly what they've been doing (which few people really seem to actually have a problem with). Companies will have double the number of distributions to choose from, each of which will have their own bugs and vulnerabilities and complicate any FOSS decision. It will make the various versions of Vista seem simple in comparison. In a few years, GPLv3-based software, because of the increased restrictions it places on its users, will become increasingly irrelevant and we'll all be back to where we are today with little to show for the debacle except a few wasted years of effort.

Obilgatory Monty Python reference

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the Knights who say Free who demand a shrubbery from Linus that he is worried about... It's OpenSolaris! I would imagine that Sun is just waiting for the final draft to license OpenSolaris under GPLv3, so they can cut off Linux in an effort to become the dominent open source kernal. The guys who like GPLv2 will work with Linux and the guys who like GPLv3 will work with OpenSolaris, while guys who like BSD continue using the BSD kernal.

you mentioned sun, funny you didn't make a connect

[Anonymous Coward]

...Hurd won't be competition, but solaris sure would be if they went GPL3. It is more than complete enough to be a bona fide serious contender and they are a big enough company to keep following through on it, too.. They would instantly over night become the freaking ivory snow of the FOSS world. If they will do it or not is a huge maybe, I certainly don't know, but technically they could and there's some push out there for them to consider it and some mumblings from sun they have been.

Re:Linus will fall into line

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be really modded up +1 flamebait, as it is true.

I saw almost the same thing happen with BitKeeper, where there was a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth on Slashdot and the kernel lists on the non-free software usage.

Now "Tivo-ization" is spoken of as if it is a bad thing, almost like the right wing media's use of "liberal".

I guess Linus has to save his face...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's inevitable that most of the free software community will switch to the GPL v3, when it's finally finalized. Linus knows this and he thus has to "warm up" to the GPL v3 because if he doesn't he'll lose face as everyone ignores him, and - lo and behold - the world still turns without him.

GPLv3 is for the coders, not the users

[i_b_don]

As I see it, the original coders did their work out of a benelivent mindset, so that we could break out of the strict ownership - everybody has to start from scratch each time mentality. I always saw the open source/GPL/GNU group as writing code for for their own sake but sharing the results with everyone for the benefit of all. I've always seen them as a group of poeple who were putting their own hard work and effort into trying to make the world a better place.

It seems totally reasonable for them to say "hey, you want to use our piles of work - great! Please do! But while you're at it, and especially if you're going to make a buck off our free labor, you need to contribute to the community also." ...but maybe that's just my own idealism and sense of fairness talking....

don

How do you know it's that code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you can't compile it and run the code you've been TOLD is written on there? And there are Closed Source code on there too, so how do you remove this (apparently) unwanted code if the system then falls over and you can't replace its' functionality?

Or was that bullshit about why you didn't want non-linux on Tivo?

Warm it up, Kane!

[master_p]

errr....I meant, Linus!!! :-)

Can you kindly explain ....

[jotaeleemeese]

..... how burying your head in the sand (or worse) is going to make the problem go away?

Whenever you use a piece of software your are under licensing obligations. If you chose not to care that is your prerrogative, but it is an inmature choice to take.

Re:Can you kindly explain ....

[HotBBQ]

Puh-lease. If you want to get sanctimonious about licensing you're barking up the wrong tree. If you think I'm the only one clicking through all those EULAs to get some work done I've got a piece of land on the moon I'd like to sell you. Ask Joe Schmoe off the street what GPLv2 or GPLv3 is going to do for him and get a shoulder shrug. A better pitch would be to show Joe Schmoe how great some piece of software is and then inform him that it will be free (as in speech, possibly as in beer).

idiot twice ..

[rs232]

"says emacsuser@linuxmail.org"

"was: Re:idiot .."