Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
"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.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
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.
...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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I'll make my own license... with blackjack... and hookers.
In fact, forget the license.
You'd think he'd be warming a lot quicker with all the flame mails coming in from the GPL fanboys.
Comment of the year
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:
t ranscript
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-
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
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...
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Rubbish, linus isn't warming. This is just part of a repeating cycle every 800 years or so, no biggie. Blame Sun.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
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.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
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.
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)?
RUPERT! I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE BAGS! You were looking at the boys again, WEREN'T YOU.
"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.
"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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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.
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.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
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
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
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.
I dont read
"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).
... 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.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
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.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.