Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites'

AlexGr writes "We've heard conflicting tales regarding Linus Torvalds' acceptance of GPLv3. InformationWeek reports on comments by Mr. Torvalds that would seem to decide the issue: 'Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites ... For Torvalds' part, it appears unlikely he'll ever adopt GPLv3 for the Linux kernel. He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3. "Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.'"

Comments

Fork?

[dn15]

If Linus doesn't like where the GPL is going, he could make his own fork...

Really, I say this mostly for the purpose of humor, but it's true. If there's enough objection to GPLv3 maybe someone will introduce an alternate version based on GPLv2 that allows it to be updated in the future but without the conditions present in v3.

Re:Fork?

[nine-times]

The GPL is not free for non-verbatim redistribution.

I don't see why not. You can't take something released under the GPL and pick-and-choose which parts you want to redistribute under, but if you're the original copyright holder, I don't see why you wouldn't be permitted to use an altered form of the GPL for distributing your old code. When you're the original copyright holder, you can license your IP however you please. Or am I wrong?

Re:Fork?

[dn15]

I was intrigued by what you said about not being able to make a new GPL-based license so I looked it up on the FSF website:

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?

You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to <licensing@gnu.org> for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.

Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

Re:Fork?

[Zonk (troll)]

Well, these guys did it, and the GPLv3 even mentions it:

13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

Re:Fork?

[OriginalArlen]

Exactly. Some people say the GPL is evil and viral. This is because they either do not understand it properly, or because they disagree with it. If you are in avour of free software, you can go the GPL route or the BSD route. You writes your code and takes your choice... the GPL is one of the most elegant hacks ever, and having been involved in some legal shenangans on the topic, I can honestly say I've never known anything else that can ruin a lawyer's day quite so effectively. It's a fucking work of art.

Pardon my language, it's late and I had a long week... (bloody Belgians!!... don't ask.)

Re:Fork?

[QuantumG]

Belgians are also evil. They raised Dr Evil. I bet he owns a proprietary software company or two.

Re:Fork?

[nine-times]

You can't just willy nilly make your own derivative GPL.

And what if the FSF gave you permission?

Re:Fork?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Some people say the GPL is evil and viral. This is because they either do not understand it properly, or because they disagree with it.

GPLv3 affects any hardware that the software is distributed with. I'm pretty sure that this makes it viral *by definition*. I also consider this to make it evil, but that's a separate issue.

Re:Fork?

[gujo-odori]

"I also consider this to make it evil, but that's a separate issue"

That's the distinction that often gets missed in the "evil/viral" argument, I wish I had mod points to give you.

Sure, the GPL is viral. I don't think anyone really denies that. Some think that's evil, some not. I'm in the "not" camp.

The reason I'm in the "not" camp is because the viral nature of the GPL is not primarily intended to cause someone's non-GPL software to unintentionally fall under the GPL; rather, it is a defensive mechanism aimed at the misappropriation of GPLed software. To wit, you can't use GPLed software in non-free software, and to make sure you don't, the license requires you to release any software you combine with GPLed software under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. In practice, people who don't want to do that have generally been given the option of ripping out all the GPLed software from their product(s) and duplicating the functionality on their own.

I have no problem with this. The GPL isn't trying to hide anything or get Free software in through the back door. It tells you up front what your rights and obligations are, and like other FOSS licenses, is orders of magnitude more clear about that than proprietary licenses. The GPL requires that if you get, you have to give back, and you can do anything you want with GPLed software except make it non-free. I have no problem with that. It's clear and up-front, and if anyone doesn't like it, the answer is simple: use something else, write it yourself, or pay someone to write it yourself. Those are the same three options you have with a proprietary license you don't like. Well, with the additional stricture that if you write it yourself or have someone do it, the proprietary vendor might look for some software patent violation they could use as grounds to sue you.

Software licenses are not "evil" or "good" - they just are. They reflect the beliefs and values of those who right them. The FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except make it non-free. BSD and similar believe you can even make it non-free. Proprietary licenses believe you can only do what they specifically authorize you to do, and what they authorize really isn't a whole lot. If I were going to sling terms like "evil" around, I daresay the target wouldn't be any open-source license.

Re:Fork?

[Surt]

I believe the (not inconsistent) position is that copyright is bad for society. So the GPL exploits the flaws of copyright in order to make the flaws in copyright extremely painful (or impossible) for others to exploit. In the event that copyright is abolished, then the GPL becomes both unenforceable and unnecessary at the same time.

Re:Fork?

[Surt]

Then you're not doing it willy nilly, you're doing it within their licensing regime, and complying with their terms.

Re:Fork?

[QuantumG]

Go read about the history of the AGPL. They asked RMS for permission.

Re:Fork?

[epee1221]

I would think it would be as much GNU/Linux as it was before. Linux is not part of the GNU project -- HURD is the GNU kernel. GNU/Linux is just combining the Linux kernel with a GNU userland.
(warning: my sarcasm meter is currently broken)

Re:Fork?

[bigjocker]

It's not as simple as that.

The Linux kernel is absolutely useless without the GNU userland (GCC, glibc, bash, ls, man, mc, etc, etc). I'm ok with people calling it whatever they like, be it Linux, GNU/Linux, BarbieOS or whatever, but I call it GNU/Linux (it's my choice) so I don't feel like a hypocrite bashing the GNU project while using all of it's tools on a day to day basis.

The argument that it should be called MIT/X11/Apache/GNU/etc/Linux then is pointless and very childish ... the kernel itself is nothing without the GNU userland (and compiler, BTW). If you hate the GNU project that much, then you are more than welcome to port the BSD userland and create your own distribution.

Re:Fork?

[bluephone]

What you're missing is the copyright on the GPL itself.
You can't just willy nilly make your own derivative GPL.
You could make up a whole new license, though, with similar principles. Close. From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.

Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

You CAN, just strip the required bits, add yours, and call it something new.

Re:Fork?

[Nazlfrag]

Yeah, and I call mine MS/Linux because my copy would be useless without the fat32 drivers. Sure, MS didn't make the drivers, but they do own their name. Sorta like how the FSF didn't make the tools, but they own the label. Well, ok, that was highly contrived, but in essence I find something wrong with 'free, open' meaning 'you are a hypocrite if you don't put our label before yours'.

Re:Fork?

[DaveAtFraud]

There are some folks who take that position but they are generally *NOT* GPL proponents. Copyright is what gives the GPL teeth. GPLed code is freely available but it can only be modified and redistributed under the terms of the GPL. Why? Because it's copyrighted. Only agreeing to the terms of the GPL gives someone the right to modify and redistribute the code. Remove copyrights and anyone (Microsoft, SCO, TiVo, etc.) can do whatever they like with Linux.

That's where the whole TiVo thing comes in. Can someone create hardware that restricts the modifications an end user can make to GPLed code? The TiVo source code is freely available as per the GPL. A TiVo user can download it, modify it and re-distribute it but there's one small glitch: the modified code won't run on a TiVo machine. The machine enforces some sort of checksum to make sure that only unmodofoed code can run.

Abolish copyrights and my guess is all the big software publishers will just adopt a TiVo-like solution that ensures only legitimate copies of their product will run. That is, you can only buy a Microsoft computer that will only run Microsoft products (kind of the way game consoles work now). Worse, the same companies can cherry pick any open source code they want since there is no copyright protection. Finally, chances are that most open source developers won't like suporting the Microsofts of the world and will go do something else. Sounds like a *REALLY BAD IDEA* to me.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Fork?

[udippel]

I believe you're correct in that the original copyright holder can relicense their software.

For the umpteeth time: of course can any author relicense her software at any moment. But that does not at all affect the earlier licence !
There is no way of retro-actively changing the licence for those who received the software under the 'old' terms. They may use the software for infinity. Only modifications and patches added after the moment of relicencing fall under the new licence. XFree to Xorg is a good example here: XFree changed their licence; fine. Xorg took the software as it was a split second before the change of licence and fully legally so. The former licence remains valid for that software before the change.

The trouble for any fork: The licenses could be non-compatible, and then you compete with yourself, so to say. Who is installing XFree these days ? See. With quite a few of the applications moving to GPLv3, who is going to use a GPLv2-licensed kernel once a GPLv3 licensed kernel becomes available (whispers: SUN-SUN-SUN), which permits the use of the latest versions of those GPLv3-ed applications ?

Re:Fork?

[DaveAtFraud]

Nothing stops you from running the TiVo software on alternative hardware now. The gotcha is that the TiVo services aren't available to you. For that matter, there are open source DVR projects like MythTV that already provide an open alternative. What people would like to be able to do is use TiVo services for scheduling what gets recorded but then do whatever they want with the recorded data. This violates the DRM agreements TiVo had to agree to in order to not get sued by the TV networks for providing a mechanism for unauthorized recording.

TiVo's business model is to provide people with a DVR at more or less cost and then make money by charging subscribers for using the device to schedule the shows they want to record. They actually have a pretty slick system that allows subscribers to schedule recordings when away from their system. This only works with the DRM baggage with a closed system.

Look into how open game consoles are. The answer is that they aren't. Without hacking the hardware you can't do anything but play the games offered by the console manufacturer. It wouldn't be hard at all to include copy protection mechanisms (e.g., the console validates that whatever has been inserted is a valid copy). Now extrapolate that to computers. You buy a console computer from whoever offers one and you are tied to their closed system. The GPL and copyright is what provides an open alternative to this. Take away copyright that protects GPLed code from being used in ways the authors don't agree with and you probably lose a viable open source development community.

I don't have a problem with copyrights or patents. I don't agree with software patents but that's a side issue. Any company that invests a huge amount of money into developing some product wants to know that they will get a reasonable return on that investment. Ditto for people who create copyrightable material (books, programs, etc.). For GPL developers that return is knowing they have contributed to an "open" software world.

Cheers,
Dave

Darth Ar'Emess

[erroneus]

...because only a sith deals in absolutes!

Re:Darth Ar'Emess

[rleibman]

You've just stated an absolute ("Only Sith's deal in absolutes") therefore sir... you are a Sith.

Re:Darth Ar'Emess

[gangien]

offtopic but isn't that statement ironic when obi Wan says it? isn't by saying that, he, himself using an absolute statement? :P

I for one.....

[apodyopsis]

....have my tin hat on and am hiding under the desk to avoid this flamefest.

In other words

[Etrias]

To steal from John Hodgeman... Anyone who uses the GPLv3 are lepers with tuberculosis.

duh

[Danathar]

"He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3."

Does this mean that Linus didn't understand that the FSF is a organization with specific goals based on the morals of it's members? It's kinda obvious.

Re:duh

[Icarus1919]

Hush! Our lord and savior is speaking.

Re:duh

[QuantumG]

Yeah, it's so funny. I know, I'll use this GPL license for my software, it looks like a good way to get people to contribute changes back to me! Free Software? What's that? Oh, yeah, that's cool, not really my cup of tea though, thanks guys. What? Yeah, I'm going to keep using your license. WTF?

Re:duh

[Nasarius]

Pretty much. I don't see anything inconsistent or hypocritical about the license or its proponents. Linus will clearly keep using the GPL2, as that's the license everyone contributes to Linux under. But those who do want to inject some extra "morality" into their software license are free to do so.

The ruler is not just a king, he's a God, so disagreeing with him is immoral, but it's also illegal, and you can get your head cut off," Torvalds continued

That's moronic. If you don't like the license, don't use it. If someone else's code is licensed only under the GPL3...tough, it's not your code. Don't use it. Anyway, aside from GCC, there are plenty of BSD alternatives to most GNU projects. If many people don't like the license, they'll contribute to those instead, or fork an older GPL2 version.

Re:duh

[Chris Burke]

Considering the GPL starts with a non-legalese description of the moral philosophy behind the GPL, I find it hard to fathom how anyone could think the FSF was from the beginning "injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software". Duh, the whole existence of the Free Software movement and the GPL is due to RMS' moral views on software and the rights of users.

And while I may not agree completely with the language of GPLv3, it still seems perfectly consistant with the moral view that RMS has been expressing since the 80s. Every new thing in GPLv3 is there to try to close a loophole that allowed someone to not grant the rights RMS believes users should have. I have no idea how Linus can call them hypocrits. I was with him more when he was simply saying that it was misguided.

Linus is a smart guy, and he wisely avoids the morality/politics of the FSF most of the time. But he ain't perfect and his decisions to sacrifice principles for practicality can come back to bite him -- see Bitkeeper for a poignant example of how "choose the best tool for the job" but ignoring the license and how that affects the tool's usefulness is the wrong way to be pragmatic and apolitical.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of the word "moral" isn't an invention of Linus, that's the word RMS uses to describe it himself. That means RMS is declaring himself a religious leader, which is patently absurd.

Newsflash: morality does not require religion.

Re:duh

[Penguinisto]

If you don't believe that proprietary software is immoral (and Linus doesn't) then you don't follow RMS. Why use his license?

...because some believe that proprietary software is impractical to progress. That doesn't necessarily translate into morality, especially when seen from a purely objective standpoint.

Also, back when Torvalds was fussing over what license to use, the options were slim... and the GPL probably fulfilled his desire to keep Linux open and to have the ability for all improvements to it to be rolled back in and shared.

As a parallel thought, moral sets don't have to necessarily match up, else you get dogma. Not everyone goes to, say, a given church because they believe with 100% certainty that the scriptural interpretations and admonitions made by him (or the membership) can never be wrong or misused. Religion (also a morality-based organizational unit) can never work like that on a practical or even a civilized level w/o imploding or splintering off (see also "Protestants"), so why should software licensing be expected to?

/P

Re:duh

[asills]

Well, they could take it and sell it, or take it to someone else and license them to sell it and not redistribute the source. His licenses do not permit that.

Re:duh

[hey!]

Well, there's not a lot of context in the article, but piecing things together, I'd guess that what has Linus ticked off is not injecting personal morality into the license, but forcing others to accept that license and by extension their personal morality.

In the paraphrased quote, it would appear that Linus is conflating these issues by criticizing their injection of their morals into the license, which they have every right to do. Anybody can license their work under any provisions they wish. If you don't like it, don't use their stuff and definitely don't use their license.

But if you separate the two issues, Linus has a very interesting point, one which occurred to me during the whole discussion about Microsoft. It would appear that FSF deliberately stuck it's thumb in Microsoft's eye, and while we all applauded the little guy getting the big guy, it's not exactly clear that this is fair. From FSF's standpoint, I suppose MS was doing something wrong and needed to be stopped, but it's not exactly fair to change the rules of the game. A lot depends on how the struggle (if any) between FSF and MS pans out.

There's an element of caveat emptor here of course. MS is a big company that can afford lawyers to tell them they're getting into trouble with a license like GPL that has upgrade features. But just because you can change the rules on somebody doesn't mean its conscionable to do so.

Re:duh

[OriginalArlen]

However based on my 30 seconds of googling, it seems that a fair bit of the kernel is licensisde under the famous "version 2 or later, at your" [the recipient of the code] discretion"... Who wants to track down the owners of all the code in the kernel tree and check whtehtrer they mind relicensing as GPL v2 *only*? Bags not me!

Once again the FSF are ahead of the game - by asking GNU contributors to please contribute their actual copyright to the FSF. That's how come the FSF don't take legal cases where some scumbag corporate is redistributing Linux without respecting the GPL (ie., illegally): they don't own the copyright on the kernel. (Fortunately lots of the basic toolchain are FSF's so in those circumstances there's generally enough FSF code to actually stop the bastards getting away with it.)

Linus is wrong about this and the FSF is right.

Re:duh

[Chibi Merrow]

I wonder if he used vi or emacs to to write that.... /me ducks

I'm torn between being so happy that someone finally understood and so depressed that it took so many replies and crazy moderations before that happened...

I can't claim to be an old timer and firsthand familiar with these things, but it seems to me so many young GNU adherents don't understand how much being a hacker already approaches a religion (especially in the negative aspects of organized religion) without someone PURPOSELY trying to espouse religious philosophy. We already have enough heresies, inquisitions, and crusades amongst people who are just trying to get work done or do research... When you start ordaining prophets and messiahs, you're asking for trouble.

Then again half the people reading what I'm writing are probably equating the word "hacker" with some black hat stealing their credit card numbers and defacing websites...

Re:duh

[Olivier Galibert]

You know what they say about assuming? The egcs guys decided from the start to only accept fsf-assigned contributions to allow re-merging with gcc in the future. Which eventually happened.

    OG.

Re:duh

[perturbed1]

Wow. I thought the whole world had heard about this one... Any google search on Torvalds and bitkeeper will tell you: http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/02/18OPopen ent_1.html

Re:duh

[maxume]

That article just emphasizes my point, that Bitkeeper was only a problem if you are mainly concerned with "Freedom". Linus isn't. He had a some-guy-screwed-up-my-free-license-for-software-I -use problem.

Re:duh

[Attila Dimedici]

Define right and wrong. What makes an action right? What makes an action wrong? Who are you to say so? What source do you go to to determine the answers? Your definition of morality is circular logic. "This is the moral thing to do because it is the right thing to do." "This is the right thing to do because it is the moral thing to do." These sentences are the same, and neither one says anything.

With apologies to RMS

[Tackhead]

> Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites ...

"Hey! That's GNU/Hypocrisy to you, buddy, and don't you forget it!"

I'm with Richard

[Anonymous Coward]

His point of view represents all of the reasons why I left proprietary software and went with Linux.

Ahem, GNU/Linux.

The kernel can be replaced.

The philosophy, which is 100% wholly accurate, cannot.

Re:I'm with Richard

[Etcetera]

The kernel can be replaced.

It's kind of hurd to do that on a running platform.

And this is news?

[www.sorehands.com]

We always knew that RMS is a zealot. I ran into him quite a bit in the 1980s. I could tell that then. While one may have thought it was a bit much then, now is it that radical? Companies are putting rootkits into computers in the name of DRM, sponsoring bills that allow copyright holders to hack into your system and destroy YOUR system with immunity -- if they think that you may have violated their copyright.

Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?

Re:And this is news?

[Chibi Merrow]

Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?

Yes.

Don't try to out-badguy corporate scum. They have budgets for it, you don't. Extending a software license to limit hardware manufacturers is ridiculous.

Nevermind the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the RIAA and MPAA, will accomplish nothing vis a vis their war on piracy, and so I'm confused as to exactly why the hell you brought them up.

Re:And this is news?

[Penguinisto]

Is GPL 3 that unreasonable given the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA of recent?

Good question, but one other pops up in response to it:

Is exigency a good enough rationale for permanent change?

In something more closely approaching English, I guess what comes to mind is this... If they're just doing it to defeat a present problem, then what of the future?

Between road-to-hell pavement and the endless measure/countermeasure/measure games that companies (and malware writers) play, there is a danger of two things: First, that the GPL becomes a convoluted mess over large values of time in an attempt to patch every little hole that springs forth; that would make the thing impractical for programming use. Second, that something really awful gets discovered by a creative but perfectly legal interpretation of the changes.

In all seriousness, I doubt that either would happen w/ GPLv3, but IMHO, we really shouldn't get into the habit of this...

I grok the moral underpinnings, and appreciate the intentions, but there's still a nagging feeling at the back of my head that says if any more massive changes are made, then we'll be dancing right on the line that separates practicality from dogma. I believe Torvalds thinks that GPLv3 has already crossed it. Others prolly think that the line is still miles away (in either direction, if we count MSFT bigwigs).

Perhaps someone needs to define that point where codifying philosophy will only bring diminishing returns? Like I said, IMHO I don't think we're quite there yet, but that the next iteration may well take us right past it.

/P

Re:And this is news?

[SillyNickName]

We always knew that RMS is a zealot.

"Zealot - A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." I think the "zealot" characterization is infounded. RMS has never struck me as being unreasoning.

Re:And this is news?

[Rutulian]

What limit on hardware manufacturer's? There is no limit on hardware manufacturer's. The only requirement is that if your hardware will only run signed code, the means to reproduce that signed code must be distributed with the software (which is distributed with the hardware). You can do whatever you want with your hardware, but if you use and distribute (i.e: make money selling) my software with your hardware, you can't prevent me from modifying (ex: with an newer version that adds extra features) said software and running it on your hardware (or rather, the hardware can prevent it, but you have to provide me with the means to make my software conform to what the hardware will run). It seems like a fair trade to me, and is not entirely unreasonable. The only people who see it as unreasonable are the hardware manufacturer's who want to use free code and not give anything back to the original developers.

Ah, hyposcrisy, yes.

[Icarus1919]

Yeah, I hate it when people hypocritically force their ideas of free software on others. Thank goodness Linus is here to save us from that!

Damn!

[Penguinisto]

Say what you will about Torvalds or his stance on GPLv3, but one thing is unequivocal... the man doesn't hide behind corporatespeak. He just comes out and says it like he believes it is.

If only CEO types would start doing that (w/o hiding behind an alias, that is)...

...well, a guy can dream, can't he?

/P

Re:Damn!

[TheRaven64]

I don't know why people act surprised. Linus has always said that the only thing he likes about the GPL is that it lets him play with other people's code; he doesn't care about who can play with his code, and he doesn't care about end-user freedoms. That's fine. It's a selfish viewpoint, but at least it's honest.

The FSF is, and always has, been about end user freedoms. They don't care about access to source code (hence their reluctance to use the term 'open source'), they care about a set of four freedoms for end users. Again, they have never tried to hide this.

If it hadn't been for the AT&T Vs BSD lawsuit, no one would care about Linus. We would still be thankful for RMS though. I don't use Linux, but I use GNU software every day.

Attention

[El Lobo]

Could everybody get back to coding and kiss politics goodbye? WTF is everybody doing these days? It seems like every single programming in the world is now a politician... Long gone are the days where programming was considered a noble art of logics and things were so uncomplicated... Humans are a strange animal, indeed... Instead of producing more, we must complicate things and waste our valuable with egoistic intrigues, politics, strange licence deals, and... oh well...

Who cares?

[ShieldW0lf]

Who cares what Linus has to say? It's readily apparent that the inevitable consequence will be a shift away from Linux kernel under GPL2 towards Solaris under GPL3.

Linus is a tool. He goes on about how he picked his methodology because of efficiencies, not morality. But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license. If they just wanted open-code efficiency, they would have went with the tried and true BSD license.

Linus doesn't even write code anymore. If not for the perceived morality of having a kernel under the GPL, and the droves of developers who participated for that very reason, he would be a complete non-entity.

Easy enough to mouth off at this point.

But there's a problem with his views

[asphaltjesus]

Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality

The problem being laws are in many ways a kind of moral consensus.

If I should ever make as big a contribution as he has I'll get to be just as opinionated and right. For now, the reasoning works out just fine in his head and I can see his point. BTW hopefully this quote wasn't taken out of context.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

New Joke

[Joebert]

Q: Why don't devolopers write their own software liscenses ?

A: Because then they'd have to write their own software.

Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states..

[chrb]

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate 'morality' with 'legality,' "

Every legal system enforces ideas of morality. Why is murder wrong? Why do countries restrict hate speech? Why can't you have sex with your sister? These are all moral concepts enforced through legality.

Maybe Linus is having a bad day. And what exactly does he mean by:

"I think it is okay to control people's hardware, I do it myself"

Does Linus sell have a sideline selling PCs? And he uses some DRM to stop users modifying the software he supplies? What?

Context please?

[MenTaLguY]

Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes in context.

Without seeing the context, in general I would say the core disagreement between RMS and Linus (setting aside the frivolous GNU/Linux naming thing) lies in their respective notions about morality: RMS believes it to be essentially objective, whereas Linus considers it a subjective concern. This seems to be another manifestation of that disagreement.

Re:Context please?

[OriginalArlen]

Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes in context. Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes... period. The article claims this was posted on a public list on 20th June, three or four weeks ago... but something tells me that if he'd posted this to the kernel list, it'd have been on Slashdot (and other sources) rather earlier than this. (No, I don't read LKLM myself.)

Anyone got a link to a list archive somewhere?

Re:Context please?

[Timothy Brownawell]

This was in the comments on the article page: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223

Re:Who cares?

[Zarhan]

But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license.

    In the 90's, I think most of the people worked on Linux due to the unclear legal status of BSD, not some funny "morality" issue.

    Without the legal issues, FreeBSD would probably be where Linux is now, perhaps even further, and Linux would never have taken off like that - it would have stayed as a little practice project for the Helsinki University. However, now Linux just has so much momentum with it that it's the focus of most open source efforts.

Oh yeah?

[Khaed]

The kernel can be replaced.

then why hasn't Stallman done it? ;)

Re:Oh yeah?

[spiritraveller]

But OpenSolaris doesn't have as many drivers as Linux. They could use some code from Linux, as there is a certain amount that's been contributed as "GPL2 or later," but the majority is contributed as "GPL2 only."

It would take a lot of people changing course for OpenSolaris to reach the same acceptance as Linux.

How many developers are upset about things that GPL3 covers and GPL2 does not?

Here's the post the article is based on..

[QuantumG]

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223

Go the rant Linus.

Linus the engineer and Linus the idiot

[A beautiful mind]

He's a brilliant engineer, a witty person, but he's an idiot when it comes to freedom related issues and he displays what basically amounts to ignorance about the subject. GPLv3 is nothing more than GPLv2 with some loopholes closed. I often wonder how Linus ended up with GPLv2 in the first place?

The contrast is striking because as an engineer he's brilliant, but he's absolutely lost as a long term thinker in relation to freedoms and morality. He'd make the worst leader in those matters.

Re:Linus the engineer and Linus the idiot

[A beautiful mind]

I'm tired of trying to explain this in abstract terms, so I'll try something new for now:

#bsd:
<@developer1> Hey look! I have this channel here, want to help me with it?
< developer2> Sure!
<@developer1> sets mode +o developer2
< selfishbastard> entered the channel
<@developer2> Hi dude, I've got this cool channel here, want to try helping?
< selfishbastard> Sure!
<@developer2> sets mode +o selfishbastard
(...2 seconds pass...)
<@evildude> -oo developer1 developer2
< developer1> this sucks.

#gpl2:
<@developer1> Hey look! I have this channel here, want to help me it?
< developer2> Sure!
<@developer1> sets mode +o developer2
< selfishbastard> entered the channel
<@developer2> Hi dude, I've got this cool channel here, want to try and make it a better place for all of us?
< selfishbastard> Sure!
<@developer2> sets mode +o selfishbastard
(...2 seconds pass...)
<@selfishbastard> tries to set mode -oo developer1 developer2
[PERMISSION DENIED]
<@selfishbastard> Hm...let's try a workaround.
<@selfishbastard> .synack developer1.home-isp.cable.net developer2.home-isp.cable.net
developer1 quit [Ping Timeout]
developer2 quit [Ping Timeout]
<@selfishbastard> Yay, it is mine!

#gplv3:
<@developer1> Hey look! I have this channel here, want to help me it?
< developer2> Sure!
<@developer1> sets mode +o developer2
< selfishbastard> entered the channel
<@developer2> Hi dude, I've got this cool channel here, want to try and make it a better place for all of us?
< selfishbastard> Sure!
<@developer2> sets mode +o selfishbastard
<@selfishbastard> tries to set mode -oo developer1 developer2
[PERMISSION DENIED]
<@selfishbastard> Hm...let's try a workaround.
<@selfishbastard> .synack developer1.home-isp.cable.net developer2.home-isp.cable.net
(...5 minutes pass...)
selfishbastard quit irc [K-Lined: abuse]

What Linus really said

[delire]

Was..

I don't think it's hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That's a fine choice, it's just not *mine*.

. What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of "freedom", while you're at the same time trying to argue that I don't have the "freedom" to make my own choice.

See? THAT is hypocritical.

and..

In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I'm their legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about "legality", this is about "morality". The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself.

The rest here.

Re:What Linus really said

[wrook]

I wish I had mod points...

Sigh... the author of the article seems to be yet another bozo trying to stuff words in Linus's mouth. Clearly people opposed to free software development have decided that trying to make GPL V3 a big issue will win them points.

What's interesting is that I haven't heard any criticism from the FSF over Linus's choice to keep the Linux kernel GPL V2. Clearly they want people to upgrade to GPL V3. In fact, here's RMS's editorial on the subject:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html

In it he doesn't even mention the Linux kernel. In fact he goes so far as to say it's OK to run a GPL V2 program side by side with a GPL V3 program.

I'm getting a little bit tired of this stuff. The spin doctors are working overtime to discredit free software developers. I think it's time we just ignored them and got back to writing code.

Re:What Linus really said

[phliar]

Linus says, "I think it *is* ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself."

Ah, the problems with the passive voice. (That's why your writing teacher told you to avoid it.) OK for whom to control people's hardware?

It's only OK to control hardware owned by you. It's not OK for Tivo (or the **AA) to control my hardware.

Re:What Linus really said

[OriginalArlen]

That argument is a straw man. Apart from being their guardian, Linus owns those physical machines. They do not BELONG to his kids, therefore they do not have the moral right to seize full control of them. When they're adults, no doubt they'll buy (or be given) machines that really are theirs. At this rate, I expect they'll be running Solaris, FreeBSD or OS X r17....

Re:What Linus really said

[trytoguess]

Tivo legally limited hardware they owned, and people willingly bought this legal object. In that case you've lost the right to say I want xyz in my widget. That comes before the purchase.

Hurd

[cstdenis]

Maybe this will push the development of GNU Hurd

Re:RMS's anti-natalism

[solcott]

What the crap!

Do you people seriously believe anti-natalism is why Stallman has no children?

I mean, I'm no stud-master myself but have you people SEEN that guy?

Re:Who cares?

[Penguinisto]

Well, the legal issues (e.g. the ATT/SysV v. BSD lawsuits) sure... but there was also the little matter of dealing with a rather large cloud of interpersonal troubles that made things ugly, with most of it centered squarely over UC Berkeley. That, and (as MSFT later proved head-on w/ their TCP/IP implementations), the classic BSD license really doesn't protect against theft and proprietary lock-down of improvements. Like most folks, if I want to contribute stuff freely, I'd really like to see any improvements to be incorporated and shared. BSD relies on only honor and a mandatory attribution for that).

Not flaming, trolling, or otherwise... but a sense of perspective is kinda needed as to why BSD didn't catch on as fast or as big.

(OTOH, the BSD license made it easy to incorporate a LOT of stuff from it into Linux, and the results converted to GPL licensing...)

/P

Re:Who cares?

[kriss]

Who cares what Linus has to say? It's readily apparent that the inevitable consequence will be a shift away from Linux kernel under GPL2 towards Solaris under GPL3.

Well, that depends on if you see it from a software activist point of view or from a make-a-living point of view. Either how, I think it's neither 'inevitable' nor 'readily apparent' that there'd be a lemming run away from Linux and sorry, that kind of rhetoric really doesn't achieve anything.

Yes, you want to see things your way. This is a given for most, if not all, people - seeing things from their perspective. The trick is to accept that hey, someone else that is not me might also be right, despite a differing view..

What is the problem? Someone please explain!

[kosmosik]

What is the problem here?

RMS writes licence named GPLv3 - so what? Nobody is forced to use that license so I don't think there is a problem here. When somebody uses his license it is not his (RMS) fault. It is fault of the entity which choosed this license. Or isn't it?

So basically Linus is yelling that if *I* use f.e. GPLv3 for *my* project it somehow not my fault but RMS?

I don't get it. I must have not understood something since Linus usually speaks quite sane and I belive him.

So again - somebody please explain what is the problem here?

Is GPL version change really such a disaster?

What should I care as Linux user?

Re:What is the problem? Someone please explain!

[BRSloth]

So again - somebody please explain what is the problem here? Simple. Linus is seeing the GPLv3 as a *developer*, while RMS wrote it as a *user*.

For a developer, it doesn't matter if the code runs on a DRM machine, as long as your get fixes back. For a user, it does matter that your changed code doesn't run on the same machine.

Maybe this is a good thing?

[dclozier]

Perhaps Sun will really put Solaris under GPL3 knowing Linus wont be able to use the code in his GPL2 kernel? Sun would start gaining developers who are turning to GPL3 themselves while Linux gets left behind. I think one of the earlier sticking points was Sun being afraid that much of what makes Solaris Solaris would be pulled into Linux without Solaris gaining any new ground. With the licensing differences between kernels Solaris wouldn't have to worry about that.

Read the original

[jopet]

That article can create some misunderstandings about what Torvalds actually said and meant. If you want to form your own opinion, read the email discussion thread (it is huge) at http://marc.info/?t=118136815500004&r=36&w=4 and Linus' posts e.g. at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118235728513045 &w=4 and http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118236278730043 &w=4 .

I think Linus' statements make much more sense in context.

For instance, several posters here have responded to "Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate 'morality' with 'legality'," by pointing out that all western legal systems represent morality in some way. However that is missing the point, and I think, not what Linus meant. Democratic systems compromise on a *common* idea of how morality should be represented by laws. This is entirely different from religious fanatics or totalitarian states where the moral ideas of an individual or small group is the only acceptable one. The point Linus is making here is that the GPLv3 is used as a vehicle to impose upon others the ideas of a few and regulate what Linus thinks should be a matter of choice.

I agree with Linus point of view: it might be wrong to trust in the choice of users. Maybe users will not do what I wish they would do - not buy DRM protected music etc. Maybe this will lead to a point where Linux needs a program that can play DRM protected media. But still, I think that taking that choice away from future Linux users would be the totalitarian way of trying to achieve things. Personally I would not want that. I hate DRM, software patents, vendor lock it, but as a *NIX user of more than a decade, I do not want Linux (and other open source software) to become the blunt weapon of a few fanatics instead of an inviting and competitive alternative.

Re:Freedom versus morality

[tepples]

The maximum amount of freedom is achieved simply by releasing software into the public domain, not by licensing through the GPL. The freedom granted in a simple all-permissive license, such as the license of FreeBSD, X11, or zlib, or (as you mention) an abandonment of copyright, includes the freedom to distribute a modified work in a way that takes away others' freedom. Sometimes this is acceptable, in which case a permissive license is best; other times it is not, in which case a copyleft license is best.

That Stallman does not encourage this says much about his motivation. Even FSF admits in the GPL FAQ that there is a time and place for permissive licenses.

Re:Who cares?

[coaxial]

Who cares what Linus has to say? It's readily apparent that the inevitable consequence will be a shift away from Linux kernel under GPL2 towards Solaris under GPL3. Only by the people that use HURD will switch. No one else gives a damn.

No one is switching to Solaris, because Solaris is dying, if not dead already. The only reason why Sun has opened it up is because they're desperate. Their expensive hardware has been replaced with commodity components, and their expensive OS has been replaced with one that costs nothing to aquire, Linux. Opening Solaris is desperation move, just like Netscape opening Navigator, only OpenSolaris won't get any traction in the Community, because the open source unix kernel niche is already occupied -- by Linux.

Oh, and you forgot to call it GNU/Solaris.

Linus is a tool. He goes on about how he picked his methodology because of efficiencies, not morality. But the fact of the matter is, other people have spent all this time assisting him because of the morality of the license. If they just wanted open-code efficiency, they would have went with the tried and true BSD license. You conclusion doesn't follow, since both BSD and GPL provide efficiency by leveraging the Bazaar as ESR called it. Linus decided for whatever reason, that GPL was more efficient. People assisted not because of the "morality" of the license, but because they got something out of it. An improved Unix kernel that ran ubiquitious 386 hardware. They could contribute, so they did. The same would have happned if he chose the BSD license. The GPL Is The One True License(tm) crowd is not, and never has been, the majority of the contributors, nor a majority of the key contributors, to the Linux kernel.

If you want to look for a project that appeals to people that care more about political wankfests than getting real work done, look at HURD, or even FreeBSD, and look where those projects are. What's the install base of HURD? Twelve?

Linus doesn't even write code anymore. If not for the perceived morality of having a kernel under the GPL, and the droves of developers who participated for that very reason, he would be a complete non-entity. Yeah, and RMS writes 1500 LOCs a day.

Since when does someones ability to critique a political and legal document hinge on whether some one is actively writing code? It's not like Linus is sitting back and resting on his piles of money. (Like he has any.)

You want to believe that people flocked to Linux because the GPL made it more "moral." Bullshit. People jumped on the Linux bandwaggon, because it was unix that ran on the 386. FreeBSD didn't even exist until 1993, and prior to that 386BSD wasn't even released until 1992. By comparison, Linux was initially released in 1991. It had first mover advantage and an open source license. That's it. So go and spout your historical revision somewhere else, because contrary to what RMS and the FSF mailing lists say, most people don't care about political statements. They just want their code to work.

Easy enough to mouth off at this point. Isn't that all RMS does? And even more to the point, what you're doing?

Now run along and file your bug report against the Linux kernel for using bitkeeper, or not calling itself GNU/Linux. The grown-ups have work to do.

What would Linus do with a trusted computing machi

[Anonymous Coward]

We have heard about trusted computing. It has many disguises (the beast always does) but one of them is that hardware won't run unsigned code. Very handy, in theory. You wouldn't want just any code by any stranger to run on your own hardware do you? Even if that stranger is you?

Offcourse trusted code is NOTHING MORE then code that has had someone pay for a certificate because we all know only people to be trusted can afford to do that (hint, sony's often mention rootkit could easily have PAYED to be run as a rootkit on a trusted computing platform).

So where would Linus Torvald have gotten the money from to get a certificate to run his newly created kernel on his own computer?

Kinda sounds like the clampdown a free internet radio. Sure, you can still broadcast anything you want, just pay us a small fortune, enough to make sure you are going to need a large enough mainstream audience to be able to pay for it and properly broadcast enough propaganda, ooops sorry, commercials to gather the fees.

Could it be that in a future of trusted computing nobody could afford to launch a piece of software if they were not certain they could re-coup the costs of the certificate? Gosh, wouldn't that in one fell swoop eliminate all this free-software and give certain US interests total control of world-wide IT?

Zealot has a lot of negative overtones. I prefer visionary. Richard Stallman has thought about all this and he has seen two possible futures, one with the GPL and one without. He seeems to think the one with the GPL will be a better one and I agree with him.

Yes, going with him all the way will require sacrifices but frankly I haven't seen him be wrong yet.

It is the whole inconvenient truth thing. No not just global warning and are you thinking about the amount of CO2 your computer is putting out wasting idle cycles while you are reading this?

It is "so you are against the war for oil but you do drive. It is "you wanna be healthy but don't excersise and eat deep-fryed chemicals". It is "you want a democracy but don't want to vote or accept the rule of the majority".

Richard Stallman has many a times written about how he sees the future with and without GPL software.

Linus Torvald has done nothing off that sort, he is a project mananger. One of legendary quality to be sure and his work and effort has been of tremendous importance to OSS as a whole BUT he is that project manager who drives a car, because, well global warming surely can't be all down to him and public transport just doesn't work for a project manager.

Linus Torvald wants to get things done, Richard Stallman wants to create a better world. In the short run the Linus way will get a you an easier to use OS, but RS way tries to make certain that you can actually USE that OS in the future.

It is about flash. The flash player that is. Flash is closed source and therefore does NOT fit well with the GPL. Yet we want our Youtube. Linus is practical and thinks Linux (The desktop) should have Flash even if it is closed source. Great, we can watch youtube.

Richard Stallman says we can't until flash has one way or another been made opensource, BUT that means he is telling us NOT to watch youtube as long as it uses flash. (Remember, there is absolutly no reason whatsoever that youtube couldn't just transmite regular video files which can then be played by any means the user desires.)

The first way gives us what we want NOW but it will also result in a world with yet more flash only sites and no incentive for adobe to open up.

The RS way denies us what we want right now BUT in the hope that in the future we either won't need it (youtube just broadcasting open video formats) or that we can get it on our own terms.

It is not hard to see what would be a better deal, in the long term, and not right now when I got an IM on my AIM with FreeSmilies telling me about this amazing vid!

Re:Who cares?

[kriss]

That is proven by history.

No argument is possible.

Translated: LALALALALALALALALALALA

Kafaka said it best

[goombah99]

"you become what you hate".
It's an amazingly true expression borne out again and again. People in their zeal to defeat an enemy they hate because of what they do, tend to gradually adopt the enemy's tactics. E.g. to "defeat" the soviet union in the cold war we became more totalitarian. To defeat the enemies of freedom, kidnappers and torturers, GWB has asked us to sacrifice civil liberties and set up guantanamo.

THis happens at the personal level too not just in the drama of nations.

One might even suspect Google finds it must sometimes adopt dubious tactics in order to quash what it sees a s Evil.

Stallman appears to be on the same road in his obsession to counter microsofts.

Kafaka's principle is hard to avoid. And when an entity feels threaten, feels it might loose or be seriously damaged it feels the ends justify the means. SOmetimes its' neccessary to stay with ones principles and tough out the assualt, rather than lose those principles.

Re:Kafaka said it best

[TapeCutter]

"What doesn't only work within boundaries?"

The current US administration.

Re:Tivoization

[Chirs]

"Did the people who wrote the GPL software used in the Tivo desire for it to be used that way? Did they envision DRM and locked down hardware? Of course not."

Actually, Linus has explicitly stated that he is *absolutely fine* with what Tivo has done. The GPL ensures that the code changes Tivo made are available back to the community. This ensures that others can make use of the changes for their own purposes. The fact that you cannot make code changes and then load it back onto the Tivo is not something that he considers to be a problem.

If they're loopholes, you're right.

[Eco-Mono]

The thing is, Linus knows exactly what loopholes the GPLv3 is closing, and he doesn't consider them to be bad things. And in a way, he's got a point. Tivo's video-processing code can still be used in other applications, after all. Isn't that free enough? Furthermore, doesn't the GPLv3 prohibit *anybody* from writing GPLv3 code that runs on a Tivo, even if they weren't the ones who locked the hardware down in the first place? I think that, from the point of view of the FSF, the GPLv3 makes a lot of sense. But Linus doesn't seem to feel that a lot of the FSF's problems really *are* problems. It's the GPL vs BSD thing all over again, and the question of how much specific freedom you restrict in order to ensure overall freedom, and just because Linus sees the question a different way doesn't necessarily make him right or wrong.

Re:Who cares?

[wrook]

In the 90's, I think most of the people worked on Linux due to the unclear legal status of BSD, not some funny "morality" issue.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Having tried to contribute to all three of popular systems in the early nineties (Linux, BSD, and Hurd), Linux was the *only* one where you could easily get any work done. I still remember getting emails from a certain someone (not RMS) telling me to go away because they only wanted experienced people working on the Hurd.

People who have read my posts previously know I'm a huge FSF fan. I'm also a huge RMS fan. But Linus changed the way free software was written. It didn't matter who the hell you were, if your code was good it got submitted. Before Linux you often needed to be in a clique to work on a high profile project.

While RMS envisioned free software development, IMHO Linus was the first to really realize it. He was the first to lead a huge group of people to do amazing things over the internet. Free software owes him a huge amount. The way we work now, the things we take for granted, are in large part inspired by how he ran the Linux kernel project in those early years. Now almost everyone does it that way.

Maybe it's hard to understand how this was a choice of "morals". But quite seriously, after being treated like I was, I wouldn't work on the Hurd nor *-BSD if you paid me to. Linux was the place to be *precisely* because it implemented the moral situation that was ideal for free software development. Everyone was treated as an equal. There was no "secret code". There were no "private" repositories. You could just do your thing. If it was good enough, Linus would roll it into his distribution.

The GPL doesn't enforce morals. It is a legal document after all. But it can set the stage to clear barriers for people working together. Many licenses force people not to work together, even if they want to. They insist on creating classes of users/developers -- some with more rights than others. IMHO, this is the "moral" issue that the FSF is trying to tackle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than just a license. But it's a start.

So while most people didn't sit down and say "Hey, Linus is being more moral", people chose to work on the project simply because it was better. He actually acted in the spirit of license he chose. It was fun/possible to contribute. You didn't feel like a schmuck just for asking for the latest build. And I suspect if this ever changed dramatically in the Linux kernel development, you'd get a lot of people jumping ship.

P.S. You won't find my name amongst the Linux kernel developers. Shortly after started working on things I actually signed an inventions agreement that forbade me from doing free software development. Yes, I sold out. I did that for years and years. Until finally I got sick of treating my customers like shit. I finished my last proprietary gig a week ago and I'm not looking back.

GCC and GPLv3

[1729]

You know, after EGCS (and the associated bazaar development model) became the official GCC branch, I kinda figured they'd face the same problem as the kernel does of producing a GPLv3 branch--with thousands of contributers having provided their work under GPLv2, it would be impossible to track them all down and get their permission to relicense their work as GPLv3. Yet I see announcements for GPLv3 trumpeting the fact that the GCC project is "on board". Can someone explain to me what I'm missing here?

To contribute a non-trivial patch to gcc, you have to sign the copyright over to the FSF, so it's up to the FSF (and RMS, in particular) to decide how gcc will be licensed. However, switching to GPLv3 is still not going to be trivial for gcc. In particular, what can be backported to old releases and under which version of the GPL? There's currently a lot of discussion on the gcc list about this issue.

Legislate morality

[paulsnx2]

I am often amazed when people claim you can't legislate morality...

The only reasonable laws are moral laws. Where laws are nothing but arbitrary, then they are not moral and thus are not just.

What most people mean when they say this is that legislation cannot be used to define morality. In other words, many immoral behaviors (lying, cheating at cards, being mean, being a jerk, etc. etc. etc.) will always be legal. The set of behaviors allowed by law will never be the same as the set of moral behaviors.

Re:Who cares?

[Kuciwalker]

That, and (as MSFT later proved head-on w/ their TCP/IP implementations), the classic BSD license really doesn't protect against theft and proprietary lock-down of improvements.

You obviously don't grok the BSD license then, because it's not supposed to "protect" against that. What Microsoft did by including the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows is the intention of those who license under BSD.

Linus Torvalds and RMS have different perspectives

[anwyn]

Linus' original message is by no means as confrontational and sharp as the Infoworld indicates. Linus and RMS are comming from different perspectives. Linus' is more pragmatic. RMS is driven by his particular beliefs. The kernel will definitely not be moving to GPLv3. The world is not comming to and end. GPLv2 and GPLv3 software can coexist on the same distribution.

Both are sincere in their beliefs. RMS is accused of being idealogical and hard to get along with, however it was perspective and tenacious that created free software and the GPL in the first place.

RMS is the original author of GPL, gcc, bash, glib, emacs and many other important tools. No "normal" person would have had the vision or determination to do what RMS has done. He originally intended to create the compiler, the runtime library, the editor (emacs) and to OS. Only a person that was a little bit "crazy" would have even attempted to do this. The Free software world and the "open source" world are greatly indebted to RMS, no matter how hard to get along with he is, or what people may think of him. The vary characteristics that some people dislike, are exactly the characteristics that made it possible for RMS to achieve what he achieved. Without RMS free software would be nowhere. The GPL was introduced from the start, as being with a certain idealogical intent, the intent of the GPLv3 is in the same spirit as this intent.

It may be this idealogical attitude, together with acceptance of a faulty academic idea called the microkernel, that caused RMS to fail in creating a workable kernel to work with his other software. The HURD is nowhere.

What is called GNU/Linux and sometimes just Linux, is a merger between Linus' kernel and RMS' free software, and much other software.

Linus attitude is pragmatic. He uses the GPL as a tool just has he uses gcc. He is a great programmer and kernel hacker. He had the wit to reject the academic idea of the Microkernel which if adopted could have killed Linux just has it did the Hurd. There is no better person to lead the Linux kernel project.

If the BSDI USL lawsuit had not delayed the BSD project there would have been no Linux. Linus would have joined one of the BSD projects as just another BSD hacker. One of the BSDs would have become the dominant free software OS.

I believe that if this had happened, Microsoft would have destroyed BSD's commercial chances using "embrace and extend". They would have created a BSD/Windows hybrid that would have duplicated BSD's API. This would have happened because BSD lacks the GPL's so called "viral clause" that prevents embrace and extend. The existence of this hybrid would have been used by Microsoft to prevent the suits from even considering a move to free software.

Linus lacks the vision that RMS has. This has caused him to make several blunders such as the Bitkeeper Debacle. However the discipline implicit in the GPLv2 will prevent him from making any fatal mistakes. Were Linus to attempt to go in any totally insane direction, his project will fork. He knows this vary well.

I have given several presentations to Austin Linux Group from this perspective.

Free software history

Lessons of Free Software History

Tanenbaum-Torvalds microkernel vs monolithic kernel Debate

Re:They're above board, not badguys.

[Chibi Merrow]

Also, these hardware manufacturers are also software distributors. If they weren't, the license wouldn't bind them at all, dummy. Did you even think that through beyond it sounding like a snappy comeback? Because it doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, and the software they distribute is in no way limited. You can take it and run it on your home built PVR box if you want. What TiVo restricted was running someone else's code on their HARDWARE. So why is a software license limiting their choices in regards to their hardware, dummy?
 

But who am I kidding? Clearly it's evil to prevent evil because preventing things is an evil denial of freedom.

Preventing "evil" by denying someone freedom who has done nothing wrong is evil. It's not "evil" for TiVo to say "our hardware will not run unsigned binaries". It's a business decision. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

Re:Who cares?

[drsmithy]

That, and (as MSFT later proved head-on w/ their TCP/IP implementations), the classic BSD license really doesn't protect against theft and proprietary lock-down of improvements.

Please explain how it is possible to "steal" BSD-licensed code. The whole *point* of the license is that it allows anyone to take the source code and do whatever they want with it.

There are few things that identify a GPL-zealot more effectively than talking about code being "stolen" because someone else's changes to it were not "shared". It's like making a speech in public and then complaining about how all the people who heard it "stole" from you.

Forget Linus for a minute...

[CustomDesigned]

What do you agree/disagree with in GPL3? I am glad that patent abuse is addressed. However, I never thought Tivo was all that evil. You *could* after all, take their code and use it on your own hardware. We all want our voting machines to run open source software - but such hardware needs to be locked in the same manner as a Tivo. GPL3 software could not be used for an open source voting machine! Fortunately, the application is small enough that alternative licenses could probably be bought/negotiated from copyright holders.

Re:Forget Linus for a minute...

[QuantumG]

I agree with the anti-tivoization provisions because I understand Free Software. So long as you keep saying "well, customers can just choose not to buy that" then you're missing the entire point of the GPL. The restrictions in the GPL are there to ensure that all the users of the software have freedom. If you're happy with "vote with your feet" then the BSD is all you need. After all, people can just choose not to buy proprietary software as much as they can just choose not to buy locked down hardware. The restrictions on tivoization of hardware are exactly the same as the restrictions on making proprietary software. It's consistent and it makes sense.

Re:Who cares?

[Animixer]

Solaris (and Sun) has probably been declared dead as much as Apple and BSD. In my line of work the commercial UNIX variants (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX) are very much alive (SAN/Database/medium-iron). Perhaps it's the native SAN driver/multipathing/utility stack on Solaris that's my favourite to work with that makes me like the OS. 'course, with ZFS and dtrace and zones in Solaris 10+ there are some nice new features, too.

All in all, everything has its place.

I guess we live in different 'communities'?

What RMS said last night

[mdsolar]

I was at the Green Party National Meeting http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_07_10.shtml last night where RMS gave a talk and he was asked about the issues with the kernel team. The main thing he had to say is that without GPL3, there could be problems with tivoization, where yes, the source is provided, but modifications are not allowed on the specific hardware thus disallowing improvements that are freely made by the community. You can share the code, but if you fix it or improve it or change it is some way that you like, you can't run it, and so you can not share your work. Me: Maybe that kind of deadending is OK since there are other versions that you can hack, and hey, it is just one set of hardware, but it does defeat the spirit of the GPL and GPL3 covers this issue according to RMS. (I have not read it. I just click accept whenever this kind of thing comes up which is why I'm now a towel boy in the house of the borg. Thanks for letting me go to the meeting Mr. Bill.) So, RMS feels, not surisingly, that the changes in the GPL3 are good for free (as in speech) software and it is regrettable if the kernel group does not go along with it. (Didn't they have input?)
--
Get solar power with no installation cost. Register your home today: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[CaffeineJedi]

Proprietary licenses believe you can only do what they specifically authorize you to do (emphasis added), and what they authorize really isn't a whole lot. If I were going to sling terms like "evil" around, I daresay the target wouldn't be any open-source license.

While the above post never referred to GPLv3 specifically, I think it made a good and interesting point. I will hijack this part for my own purposes :-)

Fundamentally, I think the poster's quote is one of the biggest arguments against the adoption of GPLv3.

GPL version 2 had no restrictions on what hardware was required upon which to run the software. The license merely required that all modifications to the software were contributed back to the original work. It did not care how you used the software, merely how you contributed back to the project.

Version 3, on the other hand, makes statements about how software is used. As far as I can tell, TiVo is one of the most predominant factors in spurring GPLv3. TiVo contributes their software back to the community, as can be seen right here. TiVo, however, runs their software on a DRM'ed box. Anybody can use TiVo's source code modifications in their own hardware projects if they so desire. The software is still just as free as if TiVo decided to run it on a non-DRM'ed box.

The FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except make it non-free This is what the FSF would like people to believe. However, it is inconsistent with what the FSF is actually doing in advocating GPLv3. GPLv2 ensured that all software remained free. The old license fully satisified that software remained "free," not just in price but in the availability of people to choose how to use it.

GPLv3, on the other hand, makes restrictions upon what kind of hardware-software interactions are allowable. Forcing people, corporations, or whomever to use freely available code in a certain way is contradictory to freedom. This is the argument for version 2 of the GPL. It is also the argument against DRM. Strangely enough, it is also the argument against GPLv3.

Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. This however, is the logical extent of what RMS and people at the FSF are proposing with the adoption of GPLv3, forcing people to run their software on certain hardware. In the words of the poster, the FSF acting exactly like proprietary vendors in limiting the scope of their software to what they "specifically authorize you to do."

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[node 3]

Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. How do you mean? Courts, police, governments, the US Constitution, do you include these in your assessment? What about a gun used solely in self-defense? Is that not an example of that exact same "oxymoron"?

It's one of the universe's many ironies that freedom must be enforced. The reason for this is that if you don't enforce freedom, someone else will assuredly impose their will upon others in contradiction of these others' freedoms. This is a direct result of combining "free will" with the physical capability of adversely hindering the freedom of others.

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[bit01]

Version 3, on the other hand, makes statements about how software is used.

Just like the TiVo hardware makes statements about how the GPL'ed software can be used. GPLv3 is merely fighting fire with fire.

I fail to understand why hardware vendors should be allowed to do anything they like while not allowing software writers the same privileges.

An eye for an eye. The GPLv3 provisions only activate when a hardware vendor has deliberately tried to do an end run around the GPL.

---

DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[QuantumG]

GPL version 2 had no restrictions on what hardware was required upon which to run the software. The license merely required that all modifications to the software were contributed back to the original work. It did not care how you used the software, merely how you contributed back to the project. Uhh, no. And this is what happens when you get your concepts of the GPL from Linus instead of actually reading it.

The GPL says absolutely nothing like that. Linus did, but that's Linus' opinion.

What the GPL says is that that you must respect the 4 freedoms, and one of the requirements to do that is to make the source code available to the users of the software. To sum it up: it's about the users.

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[totally bogus dude]

The FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except make it non-free This is what the FSF would like people to believe. However, it is inconsistent with what the FSF is actually doing in advocating GPLv3. GPLv2 ensured that all software remained free. The old license fully satisified that software remained "free," not just in price but in the availability of people to choose how to use it.

I think it would be fairer to say the FSF believes you can do anything you want with software except remove the freedom of the users of that software. That is, it's not about the software license per se, but about what recipients of the software can do with it.

The anti-TiVo clause seems to be intended to make sure that if TiVo goes out of business (or drops support for a particular model of hardware and never releases software updates for it again), that end-users will be able to fix bugs, or add functionality that's perfectly viable on the hardware they've already bought. The Free Software Foundation cares exclusively about the users freedom, and completely disregards companies trying to make money out of Free software.

I think the underlying assumption is that if there's money to be made, people will find a way to make it -- regardless of the restrictions placed on them. Further, there's a belief (and a lot of evidence to support this belief, IMHO) that companies will place as many restrictions on their customers as they feel is needed to maximise profits. Therefore, it makes sense to safeguard the users freedom as much as possible.

Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. This however, is the logical extent of what RMS and people at the FSF are proposing with the adoption of GPLv3, forcing people to run their software on certain hardware.

Nobody forced TiVo to use GPLv2'd software, and nobody will be forcing them to use GPLv3'd software, either. The body of Free software provides many benefits to companies such as TiVo, but it's not a free lunch -- and it's not intended to be a free lunch! Authors can choose what license to release their software under, and companies can choose not to use it if they don't feel they can profit from doing so. You can't benefit from the pool of Free software while simultaneously preventing your users from enjoying the freedoms Free software is supposed to give them. GPLv3 has clauses intended to close a loophole that allowed companies to do exactly that, in specific situations.

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[CaffeineJedi]

It's one of the universe's many ironies that freedom must be enforced.
Absolutely not. You can never tell a person: "I am forcing you to use your liberties! You are legally required to go out and protest!" The best you can ever do is provide them with the opportunity to protest, and hope that they choose to use their liberties soundly.

What about a gun used solely in self-defense? Is that not an example of that exact same "oxymoron"?
If we allow people to use a firearm, we bestow upon them rights. If we require them to use firearms or purchase them, it is not a right, but a requirement. Requirements on the usage of freedom make something inherent un-free.

This is what I am referring to when I say that enforced freedom is an oxymoron. Freedom has no enforcement measure, because I can not force someone to use their rights in a certain way. They, and only they, can decide how to use their freedoms. If at any point someone is required to use a "freedom" in a certain way, it is not a freedom at all, but an obligation masquerading as a liberty.

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This is what the FSF would like people to believe. However, it is inconsistent with what the FSF is actually doing in advocating GPLv3. GPLv2 ensured that all software remained free. The old license fully satisified that software remained "free," not just in price but in the availability of people to choose how to use it. If there is one defining event in RMS's life, it is his experience with a broken printer driver.
He had a printer that stopped working because the software that came with it was buggy. When he went to fix it, he could not because the source code for the software was unavailable to him.

THAT event is the entire motivation for the FSF and the GPL - an end user with hardware that included broken and un-fixable software. DRM'd software is just another manifestation of that situation, and in fact is arguably covered in the GPLv2 with this clause:

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Since DRM'd software did not exist at the time of the writing of the GPLv2 it obviously could not contain specific reference to such, but both "all modules" and "scripts used to control ... installation" both suggest that the FSF wanted to cover whatever it took to modify and regenerate the executable as delivered to the end user. Which is essentially what this clause in the GPLv3 makes explicit:

"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[Dillon2112]

That is the point: it is within the framework of the GPLv2, but not within its spirit.
Tivo did try to exploit a loophole: the intention of the GPL (any version) is to preserve the rights of the end users to modify the software they receive and make use of that modified software. Tivo found a (legal) way to avoid having to do this while still technically complying with the GPLv2. GPLv3 is written to close that loophole and preserve the idea that GPL'd software is software the end user can modify to create a new version and then make use of that modification in the same way they made use of the original software as it was supplied to them.
So, legally, there is no "loop hole or end run", but as far as the intent of the license, some perceive that there was.

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[totally bogus dude]

What is it that you want, personally and exactly, from Tivo?

I personally don't want anything from TiVo; I've never used any of their products, and don't expect I ever will. They could magically reflash every TiVo on the planet, rendering it incapable of doing anything except playing a rather bad game of Pong, and I wouldn't care. I mentioned them purely as an example (and because everyone else was doing it).

How did Tivo not keep up its end of the bargain?

That's exactly the point: TiVo did keep up its end of the bargain. They did not violate the license in any way, shape or form. Yet, people who bought TiVo's were unable to make full use of the freedoms that the GPL (as a Free software license) was supposed to guarantee them. Some people have no problem with how this transpired: it's TiVo's hardware and they have every right to dictate what software you can run on it. Others felt it was violating the spirit (not the letter) of the license that the code was provided to TiVo under.

That's why they've created a new license, with specific provisions to ensure that if, as an author, you don't want this to be able to happen to your software, you can specify that in the license. The new license is intended to correct flaws in the previous license, as perceived by certain people with specific goals in mind.

I don't think anyone is stopping you from taking out your soldering iron and having at it.

As mentioned above, I don't actually care; but from what I've read about the DMCA and related laws, wouldn't it be illegal to modify (or remove) hardware that was designed as a DRM/copyright enforcement mechanism? The TiVo hardware might not fall into this particular category, but it's not inconceivable that the protection mechanisms of future devices would. (In fact, it seems inconceivable that such mechanisms wouldn't fall under the protection granted by the DMCA.)

Further, this raises an interesting point: if it's perfectly okay to be able to hack their hardware, why is it not okay to hack their software? Where do you draw the line between the two? If the device has the ability to receive software updates, but has hardware designed to prevent you from installing software that isn't signed by the manufacturer, do you have the right to remove that hardware? Do you have the right to run whatever software you want on it after removing the hardware that's designed to prevent you from doing just that? If so, why are they allowed to put hardware in there to stop you from using your right to run your own software?

Re:Exactly the problem with GPLv3

[Fred Ferrigno]

Tivo is controlling its hardware, not its software, and without such controls, it can't actually function as a business. Actually it ceases to be their hardware when they sell it to me. I'd like to be able to control my hardware, thanks.

TiVo does not have an intrinsic right to software they didn't write. If TiVo's business model is enabled by Free software, it's only because of the generosity of the authors. Some of them don't like what TiVo has done with their software, including that business model, so now they're being slightly less generous. If TiVo doesn't like that, they can write their own or buy someone else's. That's more than they would have if Free software didn't exist at all.

Re:They're above board, not badguys.

[bit01]

Why shouldn't both hardware and software creators have the same privileges?

Yes, and the software they distribute is in no way limited.

Except for the freedom of being able to run a modified version on the hardware it came with. Taking freedom away from the owner.

If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

If TiVo doesn't like the software license they can take their business elsewhere. Their choice.

Preventing "evil" by denying someone freedom who has done nothing wrong is evil.

You're a zealot. GPLv3 is merely fighting fire with fire.

---

Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.

Viral

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Sure, the GPL is viral. I don't think anyone really denies that.

I do. The "GPL is viral" meme was invented by GPL-haters as a replacement for real arguments, and spread by trolls and useful idiots.

The GPL encourages people to volunteer their own software under similar terms, by offering them something valuable in return. A virus (biological or computer) is extremely poor analogy for that, except for the strong negative connotations. Which is the only reason it was invented.

Re:In case you're not a troll here's why you're wr

[Ohreally_factor]

PS: sorry, but Linus is being a wanker on this issue. No, not really. You should actually try to read the thread in question on LKML. Given the context of ceaseless hounding by a FSFer in the thread, Linus eventually became rather short with him. He'd suffered the foolishness long enough.

9-15 June
16-20 June

That's the meat of it, although the thread continues until it's just one FSFer talking to himself on 1 July.

I used to believe in the reputation that Linus was short tempered (and maybe he is), but you really need to read the whole thread to see what sort of dumbasses he has to put up with.

Its not that simple

[Peaker]

If you abolish copyrights, Microsoft's business model collapses.

Microsoft may become a hardware company, in which case they have an incentive to use the opensource software. In such a case they may close the software - but they have little incentive to. Anyone will be allowed to redistribute their software and create compatible hardware.
Not only that, but competing hardware companies that do open their source will be more successful than Microsoft at developing software, because they will get contributions back from the community.

The conclusion is:

• No software companies will remain in their current form. Some may sell software directly to requirement specfiers, akin to today's "in-house" software. They will not become huge monopolies.
  
• Those that do distribute closed-source software will have no way to make a profit from such software, and thus no incentive to close it.
  
• Those that do distribute closed-source software will be unable to compete with those that distribute open-source software, and get enhancements back from the community.
  

Re:If it is sitting in my home, it is my hardware

[MooUK]

Since when is a company's chosen price and business plan OUR problem?

Printer manufacturers sell printers well below cost and then overcharge incredibly huge amounts for ink. There are very few who have a problem with using an alternate source for their ink.

GPL is good, but still viral

[cbhacking]

Virus may have negative connotation, but it also has a definition that the GPL fits fairly well.

If somebody created a biological virus that immunized people against AIDS by infecting skin cells, reproducing, entering the bloodstream and spreadying throughout the body until it reached the lymph nodes and other other relevant areas, then modifying the immune system to make it immune, would it be any less of a virus? Sure, people with this would be encouraged to spread it, it would be a good thing, but it still meets the definition of a virus. The GPL (but not the LGPL) behaves very much like this.

In fact, the difference between GPL and LGPL is the viral clause. LGPL code must remain free and be distributed in source form with anything that contains it, but it can be comiled into proprietary modules. GPL code CANNOT! If I wrote a faster or safer or whatever version of printf and licensed it under the GPL, any source code using that method would need to be entirely licensed under the GPL! Insert one handy method, and it affects everything. Now imagine what it's like for things like LAME, one fo the best MP3 encoders available... and widely used even outside the free software world, because it is LGPL code and people don't need to make their entire ripping program or whatever open source just to use a really good free encoder.

Please explain to me how you think the GPL is not viral? You're free to use an alternate term if you like, provided it is at least as accurate in terms of definition.

I have no objection to the GPL (v2, I'm a bit less comfortable about v3) and in fact use it myself, but I'm thinking of switching to the LGPL because, while I would like more people to open their source code, as long as people keep MY code open and contribute back any and all changes they make to it, I don't really feel I should restrict what they do with the rest of their code even if it uses something I wrote.

(Mind you, AFAIK nobody is using any of my code in anything like that anyhow, but that could change.)