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

[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

[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.

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...

[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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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: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.