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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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:Relicensing not an issue

[KarmaMB84]

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

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.

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.

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: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).

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:"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.