Torvalds Puts Support Behind GPL2 Linux

Christiangrays writes "Linux creator Linus Torvalds has used an interview being made public by the Linux Foundation to stress that version 2 of the GPL still makes the most sense for the Linux kernel over the newer GPL version 3. GPL 3, which was released last year by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), reflects the FSF's goals while GPL 2 closely matches what Torvalds thinks a licence should do, Torvalds said. "I want to pick the licence that makes the most sense for what I want to do. And at this point in time, Version 2 matches what I think we want to do much, much better than Version 3," said Torvalds, who is now a fellow at the foundation. He was interviewed in late-October by Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin."

Comments

Single Point of Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's to say that IBM hasn't paid the guy to keep it on GPLv2?

How free does Linux want to be?

[Dareth]

We are just clipping Tux's wings a little bit. It is not like he can fly anyway.

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[niceone]

Tux needs his wings to swim after fish and avoid starving to death. Maybe Linus hasn't thought of this? Should someone tell him?

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[CarpetShark]

We are just clipping Tux's wings a little bit. It is not like he can fly anyway.

Hmm. I find your lack of faith disturbing. Do not underestimate the power of Linux:

"Linux can do endless loops in six seconds." -- Linus Torvalds.

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[kdemetter]

GPLv2 worked fine for Linux in the past . Why wouldn't it work fine for Linux now .
It would be less acceptable if Linus immediatelly accepted GPLv3 , without looking at it . The fact that he stays with GPLv2 means he looked into it , and decides to play on the safe side and stay with a license that worked well.

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv2 worked fine for Linux in the past . Why wouldn't it work fine for Linux now .

Trusted/Treacherous computing (having a TPM in your machine). Basically, it allows hardware makers to do a total end-run around the GPL.

Trusted computing "According to the International Data Corporation, by 2010 essentially all portable PCs and the vast majority of desktops will include a TPM chip."

A Fritz chip, in other words.

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[Chandon Seldon]

Linux used to be released under the latest version of the most popular free software license. Code from Linux could be combined with code from any other GPLed project. Because of the Linux developer's explicit choice to remove the "or later" provision from their license text, this is no longer true. Now most GPLed projects cannot include code from Linux without causing themselves obnoxious and unnecessary licensing problems (by being forced to GPLv2 only instead of GPLv2 or later/GPLv3).

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[formal_entity]

GPLv2 worked fine for Linux in the past . Why wouldn't it work fine for Linux now . Yes it clearly must be fine forever, because the world is static -- especially the IT industry is. Never mind the fact that software patents and DRM have entered the scene and are these days being used as weapons against digital freedom.

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[Tony Hoyle]

On the other hand no GPLv2 project can include code from GPLv3 without causing themselves obnoxious and unnecessary licensing problems (by being forced to GPLv3 only instead of GPLv2).

They're two separate, incompatible licenses. That's just the way it is. They just happen to have similar names.

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[chgros]

GPLv2 worked fine for Linux in the past.
Some would not agree

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[Chandon Seldon]

They're two separate, incompatible licenses. That's just the way it is. They just happen to have similar names.

You're going out of your way to ignore the obvious reality of the situation.

The GNU GPL is a license that was designed to be occasionally revised, and the writers therefore explicitly provided for forward-compatibility. Most projects that use any version of the license maintain this foreword compatibility - projects that go out of the way to prevent it are the exception.

Maintaining a "GPLv2 or later" project in the face of the possibility of "GPLv3 only" contributions is no more radical or difficult than maintaining a project like Mozilla under a non-trivial license. In contrast, insisting on GPLv2 only is even more obnoxious than insisting on GPLv3 only (since the FSF let everyone know that new versions were likely to happen).

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[Burrina]

I am new so here goes! I thought that Gpl3's main purpose was to ensure that Microsoft (Maybe Novell too) could not get thru any loopholes and set back Linux in any way? Sorry if I missed the boat but this is what I understood.

Re:How free does Linux want to be?

[jellomizer]

The GPL2 is free as in freedom...
The GPL3 is free as in do it the way RMS wants you do it. GPL2 was a fairer balance between developers rights and end user rights (Opposing Freedoms) GPL3 Focuses more on the user rights and takes away developers rights. Linus Torvalds as a developer making an OS that is popular among developers and used by many commercial developers, it is not surprising he is resistant to GPL3.

For example I don't like DRM I think it is a waist of time and development talent it is ultimatly self defeating... But to say I Can't code DRM with a GPL3 application makes me angry and feel like I loss some rights, and the fact that it is OK for IBM but not OK For TiVo just makes it worse.

I know there is this grand scheme and a vision of people using and sharing code and everyone is happy... But just like many Utopian ideas (Communism for example) they just don't well without stomping of peoples rights because Utopian doesn't understand that conflict occurs when people have free thought. What will be in GPL4 if you cannot use the code if you are a registered republican, or perhaps you cannot code any program that runs on a language or os that isn't GPL4 complaint. You complain as the government seems to take away your rights (wich normally happen during times of war) and you let someone else from the other side take your rights aways, freely and willingly. Keep your eyes open on every side. Just because RMS did good in the past doesn't mean he is continuing it.

Back in time we gave weapons to our allies in Afghanistan to fight the Evil Red Army, lead by a charismatic young leader Osma Bin Ladin, He is not longer a good guy now is he. Keep your eyes open and think for yourself. Just because someone touts freedom doesn't always mean he believes in it.

Re:Wether it's true or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Why would I think that?

2 vs 3

[cromar]

Before everyone starts arguing about the merits of GPLv3, let's remember that it's just the license for the kernel. It's not going to be changing much when used in proprietary consumer devices. On the other hand, if it's not going to change it much, why lock it up? Kinda a moot point...

Re:2 vs 3

[corsec67]

I one of the main points of the GPLv3 is that someone like TiVo couldn't take the Linux kernel, modify it, and then use it in the TiVo signed with a key, and then distribute the changes but not the key. That would mean that anyone could make a modified TiVo kernel, but load it onto the device since it isn't signed.

From the Wikipedia article (the last section)

What is the value of letting a company use and modify the Linux kernel if they can legitimitely lock out any usage of a modified kernel on that hardware?

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

On the contrary, the kernel is exactly where the difference between GPLv2 and v3 matters most. Let's say the device maker wants to implement DRM. This requires kernel support, because if it were attempted solely in userspace somebody could modify the kernel to intercept the stream. If the kernel is GPLv3, then there's no problem doing so. But if the kernel is GPLv2 (as in the TiVo), then the device can prevent the modified kernel from running and thus enforce the DRM.

In other words, the point is not moot at all: GPLv2 kernels support DRM, while GPLv3 kernels wouldn't. By advocating GPLv2 for the kernel, what Linus is really saying is that he approves of DRM.

Re:2 vs 3

[TheRaven64]

What is the value of letting a company use and modify the Linux kernel if they can legitimitely lock out any usage of a modified kernel on that hardware? Value to whom? To the company, the value is that they get a cheap and relatively well-supported development platform. To the Linux community the advantage is that more people are working on Linux. To the end user, the advantage is that they get a device with a stable[1] kernel.

Any company building a product like this has three choices:

• Use a proprietary kernel like QNX or Wince.
• Use a BSD licensed kernel.
• Use Linux.

Linus believes that changing to GPv3 would push companies to choose one of the first two options instead of Linux. RMS believes that switching to v3 would cause companies to continue using Linux but rethink their policy about locking users out of the systems they bought.

[1] Please replace stable with any other adjective you feel applies to the Linux kernel.

Re:2 vs 3

[moderatorrater]

As I remember, Linus is of the opinion that hardware vendors shouldn't have to leave their hardware open because there's more of an investment and because it's a physical object, and frankly I agree with him. Tivo has to open up their source code, so why not grab that source code and run it on a device that will allow you to change it? The code is still free, but the physical device that you're being sold isn't. Hardware costs more to produce and develop than software does, and it makes sense that someone might be of the opinion that hardware makers should have more control over a device that costs them more.

Re:2 vs 3

[sumdumass]

Well, besides the point that the GPLv3 doesn't stop TIVO from doing that, it only limits it's ability to do it, why have a halfassed broken license that doesn't accomplish what it claims to?

There are a lot of things in the GPLv3 that are broken with respect to how people think it works. And this includes a lot of the nonsense spouted by the FSF themselves.

Re:2 vs 3

[moderatorrater]

Bullshit. That's like saying that because you pay taxes, you support torture! Or like saying since you support slashdot, which is part of a corporation, you're promoting the exploitation of poor chinese children! Linus believes that there's a difference between hardware and software, and that software shouldn't dictate hardware. That makes sense to me.

Re:2 vs 3

[91degrees]

What is the value of letting a company use and modify the Linux kernel if they can legitimitely lock out any usage of a modified kernel on that hardware?

They can still sue the modified kernel on their own hardware.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

The code is still free, but the physical device that you're being sold isn't.

Yes, that's why I paid money for it instead of just taking it off the shelf. And in return, I expect it to be mine, and to have the ability to change it however I like (within the bounds of any applicable laws).

Re:2 vs 3

[sumdumass]

Actually, Linus isn't really advocating DRM but he has said he sees no reason to forbid it.

I too see no reason to forbid it. I also don't see the problem with the Tivo but that is another subject all together. Freedom in software or anything for that matter isn't just the freedom that you want to allow people to have. Even if they use that freedom to restrict yours. There is another political term for the illusion of freedom that is basically "you can do what I say" and I will leave it to the reader to figure that out.

Re:2 vs 3

[Gothmolly]

Linus can do it, because its HIS. What was the last epic thing YOU produced?

Re:2 vs 3

[91degrees]

So the purpose of GPL 3 is to prevent freedoms that developers previously had, on account that some people don't like it?

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

Actually, Linus isn't really advocating DRM but he has said he sees no reason to forbid it.

I chose my words very carefully in that post, but apparently not carefully enough. I didn't say he was advocating DRM; I said he approves of it (which is the same as seeing no reason to forbid it).

Freedom in software...

Software, hardware, whatever! When you bring DRM into the picture then there's not really a difference, because if you don't have access to the hardware, you can't use the modified software!

...or anything for that matter isn't just the freedom that you want to allow people to have. Even if they use that freedom to restrict yours.

Then why not use the BSD license and be done with it? After all, by the exact same argument it's unreasonable to restrict them from restricting your freedom by making closed-source derivatives, too.

Re:2 vs 3

[Egdiroh]

So the RMS position pre-supposes his software is the best in which case the point of the GPL is to have hardware makers adopt it, which will give him access to the code running his hardware. So when the closed hardware people starting using non-code secrets to keep their hardware closed, instead of relying on the secrets of proprietary code, this didn't go down well, cause that's why they offered up their superior code in the first place.

People like Linus, have a non-trivial code base out there, but don't think it's the best. For them the GPL serves to get people who want/need better code to use the existing code base as a foundation and to then share their improvements with Linus and friends. As long as they share their improvements people with this mind set don't really care what the code is being used for, and want to encourage people to improve it.

So one set of people care about open hardware, one set of people care about open code. Ironically it is the open hardware people that run the "Free Software Foundation", which controls the path of the GPL. Since the two goals are somewhat divergent it makes sense that newer versions of the GPL would suit people with a different mindset and goals less.

Personally I think the FSF has been indirect in stating their goals and got a lot of people behind their banner that didn't truly support what they did and now you have this perceived dissension. When really you have two parallel efforts that share a lot, and should collaborate a lot but should also acknowledge their differences when doing so, so that when one effort does something to serve some of their separate interests the other group doesn't take it like a betrayal.

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

Linus believes that there's a difference between hardware and software, and that software shouldn't dictate hardware.

And this is why neither Linus nor you understands the issue! The problem is not software dictating hardware, but rather the other way around!

Re:2 vs 3

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Speaking of other kernels, what about Solaris? If Linux stays at GPL2, and Solaris is releaseed as GPL3, would Solaris be in a position to replace Linux as the Free kernel of choice? Could Free Software advance even as Linux declines?

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

"In other words, the point is not moot at all: GPLv2 kernels support DRM, while GPLv3 kernels wouldn't. By advocating GPLv2 for the kernel, what Linus is really saying is that he approves of DRM."

No, what he's really saying is that people should be able to use Linux any way they wish, not according to the principles of some particular group.
Besides, last time I checked, not disapproving of something doesn't mean you approve of it. The world is not black and white.
Perhaps Linus considers "approval of DRM" to be an 8 bit int, and not a binary value.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

That's and odd question. Why do you ask?

Re:2 vs 3

[Aladrin]

He's not saying he approves of it. He's not saying -anything- about DRM. If you have to put words in his mouth, try something a little more accurate like: He doesn't think DRM is a battle for the Linux kernel to fight.

Re:2 vs 3

[caluml]

There's a long way between "approving" of something, and not condemning it. Just because you don't condemn/reject something, doesn't mean you approve of it. Approve to me means that you feel it's a positive thing. What if Linus just doesn't care either way, but doesn't feel that there's a need to reject/ban it?

Re:2 vs 3

[sumdumass]

I chose my words very carefully in that post, but apparently not carefully enough. I didn't say he was advocating DRM; I said he approves of it (which is the same as seeing no reason to forbid it).

Well, it isn't really that he approves of it either. And yes, I misread what you wrote. From what I remember, he is just indifferent to the subject. He doesn't approve or disapprove of it. He just don't think it is up to him to stop others from using the software how they want in this manor which I think is the same as you are trying to say.

Software, hardware, whatever! When you bring DRM into the picture then there's not really a difference, because if you don't have access to the hardware, you can't use the modified software!

Well. There is something of a difference. You can use the software on other hardware and you can design your own hardware to use the software unchanged. You should also be able to find the unlocked hardware parts seperate from a Tivo appliance and be able to use it there. How easy this is, I don't know. I have never cared enough to find out. But your limitations aren't as binary as you pretend.

Then why not use the BSD license and be done with it? After all, by the exact same argument it's unreasonable to restrict them from restricting your freedom by making closed-source derivatives, too.

That is certainly an option.But it isn't the only option. You see, you get to see the changes in the software and you get to see how somethings were done and you get all sorts of advantages from GPLed software even if you don't get the hardware it is designed to work on. I have always been one to separate the "but I paid for the hardware" argument separate from the I need the source code argument. I think they are two separate arguments and shouldn't be confused with each other. Unfortunately, others didn't think the same and created the GPLv3. They then excited a situation with Novell and MS to sway opinion in their favor and rode this to completion.

We shouldn't be having this argument in the context of the GPL at all. But things happened and we are. That doesn't make it right or correct though.

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

The problem here is that TiVo is serving two masters. They want to sell you the box, but it interacts with the content of the big, nasty, litigious mainstream media outlets. They don't want to sell you something you can easily use to violate copyrights, or at least they don't want to be known for that in courtrooms.

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

I like to think of Linus as a BSD-spirited guy who likes the source code openness of the GPL. He wants people to use the code for whatever, so long as they share their improvements. Many in the FSF camp want to limit not just what you can do with the source, but where and how you can run the binaries. I think there's a good argument that limiting some freedoms can protect others, but i also think there's an argument that the FSF limiting the free use of software is a bad precedent.

Re:2 vs 3

[TheRaven64]

The Solaris kernel is superior to Linux in a great many ways, but inferior in one very important one; device support. That said, the importance of Linux to the Free Software movement is greatly overstated. There are several very solid kernels that can be used as drop-in replacements for Linux (right down to ABI compatibility in some cases).

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Gothmolly: "Linus can do it, because its HIS."

Well, it's PARTLY his. However, that's besides the point.

Linus did a huge mistake, and that doesn't relate to GPLv3: he locked the kernel into a license that CANNOT be changed.

Regardless of what one thinks of GPLv3, if an issue arises with GPLv2 that the kernel folks think need to be addressed, then nothing can be done. Laws change too. However, Linus made sure that the license of the kernel cannot be adapted to any change in laws, nor to address any issue deemed important. That's got nothing to do with GPLv3, except for the fact that the arrival of GPLv3 highlight Linus' mistake.

Linus screwed up on the legal front, and he's just trying to make it as something else.

Re:2 vs 3

[eggnoglatte]

Well, besides the point that the GPLv3 doesn't stop TIVO from doing that... I salute you! Finally somebody who gets it. I so wish I had mod points right now. Whenever this topic comes up, I am tempted to post the N different ways for circumventing GPLv3 that I can think of, but ultimately I don't want to encourage anybody.

Escalating the rules and restrictions for distributors in the GPL is somewhat similar to ever increasing new DRM methods: the more difficult you make it, the more likely it is that you'll find somebody who sees it as his mission to produce a workaround. The escalation of rules and workarounds will just go on until the rules have become so restrictive that a whole number of legitimate uses are precluded, at which point people will move on to the next project. The only way to deal with that is to stop, and accept that a minority will always be using your stuff in ways you don't fully agree with. Get over it.

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

So the purpose of GPL 3 is to prevent freedoms that developers previously had, on account that some people don't like it?

Yes, the purpose of the GPL 3 is to preserve freedoms that users previously had, on account that some corporations are trying to infringe upon them.

Both of the above sentences mean the same thing; they are merely two sides of the same coin. The FSF (creator of the GPL) has always been on the side of the user (yes, at the expense of the developer -- preserving perfect freedom for both is impossible). If you value the developer's freedom instead, then the BSD license is more appropriate for you than any version of the GPL.

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

No, what he's really saying is that people should be able to use Linux any way they wish...

But people can't -- not on a TiVo, at least, and not "people." The developers of the TiVo are getting to use it the way they wish, yes, but the users of the TiVo aren't! (Given the assumption that they want to do something that the TiVo doesn't already do, anyway.)

Re:2 vs 3

[VGPowerlord]

I hate to say it, but I think locking into a license he liked is a better idea than locking into a license that can be arbitrarily changed by another group of people.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply telling the other person that they don't understand the issue is not an effective way to form an argument. It just makes you look like you're incapable of countering their position.

Try again.

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

You can use the software on other hardware...

I'm going to tell you a little story. I'm sure you've already heard it, being a Slashdot reader, but I'll continue anyway:

A couple of decades ago, there was a programmer, working at a college in New England, who had just gotten a new printer. He had a problem, though: the printer didn't do quite what he wanted. But that wasn't a big deal; like any good programmer, he figured he'd simply modify the printer's driver to fix it. In order to do this he'd need the source code, so he emailed the manufacturer to get a copy. Now, back then people -- and especially those working in academia -- shared code all the time; it was normal. So imagine his surprise and dismay when the company refused to give him the code for his own printer! Now remember, he could have just gotten himself a different printer. But he was upset about the principle of the thing. In fact, he was so upset about it that he resolved to dedicate himself to ensuring that users could always control their tools.

So who was the programmer in my story? His name is Richard Stallman, and he created GNU and the GPL. So ask yourself this: considering the reasoning behind the GPL, is having to buy or make different hardware good enough?

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

"But people can't -- not on a TiVo, at least, and not "people." The developers of the TiVo are getting to use it the way they wish, yes, but the users of the TiVo aren't! (Given the assumption that they want to do something that the TiVo doesn't already do, anyway.)"

People can use the Tivo modified *kernel* any way they wish. If you are upset that they can't run whatever software they want on their Tivo hardware, that's different.
Go bitch to Tivo about it. Why should the GPL (which covers the kernel software) grant you the rights to do *anything* with hardware. If Tivo want's to lock down
their hardware, that's their prerogative (misguided or not). You are free to design your own hardware and run the Tivo modified kernel (or your own GPL granted modification thereof) on it.

Re:2 vs 3

[mwlewis]

Yes, but as has been pointed out to you, you've wandered outside of strictly software. It obviously doesn't matter to you, but consider that the argument is (roughly) equivalent to complaining that some GPLed i386 assembly code wont run on a PPC. You can still do whatever you want with the code, but the software license shouldn't have anything to do with the hardware (according to those who don't agree with this part of GPLv3).

GPLv3 advocates believe that the software license should also be able to reach out to affect how the hardware interacts with the software. This places requirements on the hardware as well as the software. Yes, you've extended the rights of the user at the expense of the developers, but you've gone beyond only dealing with software.

Just please accept that not everyone thinks that software licenses should do this.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the last epic thing YOU produced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Re:2 vs 3

[SanityInAnarchy]

Linus believes that there's a difference between hardware and software, and that software shouldn't dictate hardware.

Read my signature.

GPLv3 cannot dictate terms to hardware. All it can dictate is which hardware that software may be run on.

In fact, it cannot even dictate that -- unless you intend to redistribute the software.

So, in a sense, it does limit the poor little TiVos of the world -- they are no longer free to simply take GPL'd code and give nothing back. Obviously, we can't stop them from making a locked-down, DRM'd device, but I'm certainly not going to contribute code towards such a device.

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

then it is clear that you do not understand the issue: the FSF is just one actor in a very common political conflict between rights and liberties of different individuals. The GPL's objective in this conflict is to limit the freedom of those who could use their privileged possition (as developers or manufacturers) to limit the freedoms of end-users.

"the FSF limiting the free use of software" is not a bad precedent, it's just the FSF doing its best to protect the liberties that its political objectives demand protected, because the *ONLY* way in wich you can defend any given liberty is restricting someone's rights, somewhere.

To me, the problem is clear: linus doesn't give a damn about freedom as a political priciple or value. He just likes the GPL because it works to make better software. He does not endorse the movement on philosophical grounds, but purely practical ones. I think that this possition (like the OSI's) is oportunistic. he is a genius when it comes to programming, though.

Re:2 vs 3

[Martin Blank]

Linus did a huge mistake, and that doesn't relate to GPLv3: he locked the kernel into a license that CANNOT be changed.

On the contrary, it can be easily changed. All he has to do is republish his code with the desired license attached to it; as copyright holder, he has this right. Code in that release is now subject to the new license. While this may be trickier for someone small to do, Linus can do it very easily with announcements in the normal locations, and if he chooses to go back and do the same with prior kernels, he has that option, too. There may be some issues with how the licenses for other code bits may affect distribution, but we're potentially going to have to deal with that in any case as the GPLv3 becomes more common.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like saying that because you pay taxes, you support torture!

Well even if you are against it, if you pay taxes which go to the support of torture then you are indirectly increasing the amount of torture in the system.

Think about it this way: how much DRM would be in the system if we all adopted GPL2 vs GPL3?

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

If you (or the kernel community) do not want to leave it up to, say the FSF, then fine. But whatever you do, make sure you have SOME way to update the license for the entire project. If you want to lock a given project to a particular license, then run your project such that the copyright of contributions must be given (exclusively or non-exclusively) to a central authority.
You SHOULD have a way to update the license, unless you are one of those who think that there is such a thing as a perfect license that is absolutely garanteed to be problem free and imune to any change in laws.

"v2 or later" is better than "v2 only" because the former provides a way out of a license issue.

If Linus owned ALL of the kernel code, then "v2 only" wouldn't be a problem.

Re:2 vs 3

[bigstrat2003]

That point doesn't even make sense in the context of this discussion. The GPL is (supposedly) about sharing your changes with the community. Fine, cool. However, what you're arguing is that not only are you supposed to be sharing your changes with the community, but you shouldn't be doing things the community doesn't approve of. In other words, "I'm going to let everyone use this because I'm generous like that, but only as long as you do it in the way I specifically approve of". Well, if that's the way that you guys want to try to run things, fine, but that ain't freedom. Freedom does not include telling people that they have to follow your moral beliefs, and you do not have the right to make the company help you modify your device as you see fit.

You know what? If you want to make your TiVo run exactly how you want it to, great... but TiVo isn't obligated to help you in that endeavor. And if you choose, as a punishment, to try to not allow them to benefit from the work you're supposedly giving away as a benefit to all mankind, then you don't really believe in that altruism, you're just paying lip-service. Then again, it's been painfully obvious to me from the first time I read the GPL that it's not about freedom, it's about enforcing your ideology as much as possible on others.

Re:2 vs 3

[91degrees]

How does this preserve my freedom? Before it was possible for the user to make a choice. GPL 3 seeks to take that choice away from me. We can't have an open source DRM media player even if we want one.

Re:2 vs 3

[Darinbob]

So, in a sense, it does limit the poor little TiVos of the world -- they are no longer free to simply take GPL'd code and give nothing back.

And what's wrong with that? I like TiVo, I like their device, and I like that they used open source and were able to leverage the work of others (as all good engineering does). Hurray, Linux gets more exposure. Hurray, the goal of open source to promote the reuse of software instead of reinventing the wheel has been advanced.

So what is wrong with the TiVo picture? Apparently some GPL fans feel that the political aims are more important than the engineering aims. The goal is not to promote reuse, except by people who agree with them. "Give nothing back" sounds too much like the crazy BBS days when readers were rated on "upload to download ratios". But if TiVo had decided not to use Linux, would these GPL people be happier? If someone doesn't like DRM, then bitch at Hollywood or Hughes Satellite, not the company that's trying to create a useful product under real world conditions.

Open source should not be about "preventing" proprietary software. And it usually isn't about that. Except in the GPL case. Open source should be about creating software and letting others use it in any way they want, no matter what political views they have. That's software 'freedom'.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

He can republish ***HIS*** code with a new license. He cannot republish ***SOMEONE ELSE'S*** cod with a new license. Not all code in the kernel is owned by Linus. You need to ask the other contributors to also relicense, and that can only happen if the contributors can be contacted.

Instead of always talking about v2 vs v3, it would be nice to see people challenge Linus on how the legal aspect is (mis)managed, and what he plans to do to address this.

Linus "likes" GPLv2 better because if he disliked it, he'd be faced with a rather big problem. I have vague recollection that at one point Linus said if he had to do it again, he'd pick something other than GPL - though, I don't have a reference for this.

When you see Linus say that he likes GPLv2 better than v3, you should read it as "I - Linus Torvald - prefer to put my head in the sand, rather than face the problem I created".

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

It is clear you're an accusatory and condescending ass. That's what's clear. Because someone disagrees with you is no reason to say they don't understand an issue. If everyone agreed, there wouldn't be an issue to discuss and no licenses pointing out the differences would be necessary. Come down off your high horse if you want to continue the subthread, please.

Why is a developer of something with open source code any more privileged than the end user? That's the whole point of the source code being available.

Furthermore, why is the manufacturer of a particular piece of hardware more privileged than the end user? The end user has every right not to buy that brand of hardware. The only real disadvantage the end user has isn't that the hardware in non-free. It's isn't even that they can't run their update kernel on the proprietary, sealed hardware without modifying the hardware. It's that without being able to decrypt the OS and then uncompile it, or to be able to run it in a sandbox, that they can't be sure the compiled kernel is really the same as what the manufacturer supplies as source. If Linus pushed the matter of making them prove it's the same, he could probably witness the signing of it and vouch for them. Otherwise, the very act of distributing a signed binary is counter to the requirement to provide the real source. However, if you have that little trust in the vendor, why would you buy their hardware, as it could be doing any nefarious thing too?

When someone calls themselves the "Free Software Foundation", they should be limiting the free use of the software as little as possible to further its greater freedom. The GPLv2, for all its perceived flaws, does that pretty well. To say something is free software, but that it can only be used in this or that way by people who agree with the whole political platform of the foundation is frankly blatant hypocrisy. What good is it to the end user to have the source code if they're not allowed to run the software? How is that keeping the privileged developers and members of the FSF from limiting the freedoms of end users?

Why is it a problem that Linus doesn't agree with the FSF altogether? Is complete agreement with the FSF prerequisite to abhor slimy, lying, monopolistic, closed-source Unix vendors? Is it important to carry an FSF card to think that cooperating with other developers around the world can produce something better than what's being pushed by the innovative marketing department at Microsoft? Linus chose the GPLv2 because what RMS codified in it made a lot of sense to him and to many other people.

It might help you to remember that RMS and the FSF are the ones who have changed position. The people who are sticking to the GPLv2 are doing exactly what the FSF asked of them up until a few months ago. Now, the FSF wants to ask them to change. Why is it that Linus or anyone else is being called anti-FSF when it's the FSF that has changed direction?

The FSF used to always say that if you liked the GPLv2 even enough to consider it, that it was better to use it and stand united as a Free Software community than to splinter off new and slightly incompatible licenses. That's true, and Linus saw the wisdom in that. Now, the GPLv3 is a license other than the GPLv2 and it's causing a bunch of strife and incompatibility in the community. Many people in and adorers of the FSF think that because they wrote both licenses that everyone should just switch. However, they encouraged the use of GPLv2 by a much wider audience than their core group, and now they're trying to say there's some dogma attached to the licenses. The licenses are legal documents for men, though, and not handed down from on high and dictated to software developers by angels.

The FSF should be glad so many people are using the GPLv2 rather than BSD, MPL, or any of a hundred thousand closed-source EULAs. By bickering with people who support the major beliefs of the FSF but not the dogma and specifics, the FSF is alienating all the OSI crowd who never bought into a centralized repository of "free" software at MIT in the first place. These are the people they should be glad are on the same side, even if they're not in the same tent.

Re:2 vs 3

[w000t]

I disagree. Seems that everybody forgets that months ago Microsoft latest strategy against OSS was to cut "interoperability" and "patent protection" deals with every Linux distribution it could (a move that allowed them both to throw FUD and -potentially- profit on OSS at the same time). It was the release of the GPLv3 (which among other things, closed that possibility) what made them back out; something which was accomplished without needing any actual project to change their license (the mere threat that it could happen was enough). I'd say that alone justify it's existence and is prove enough that there is a point to GPLv3. Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean that it's not better than it's predecessor (and it certainly doesn't mean it's worst). That said, I can understand that in some scenarios the new previsions are not exactly a win (TheRaven64 (641858) makes a good point a few post above), but for a lot of projects (especially those not concerned at all with embedded software) I think the GPLv3 is an improvement.

Re:2 vs 3

[ArsonSmith]

exactly, the GPL has never been about protecting the Developer or the Developer's freedoms, but protecting the User and insuring the code is always available.

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

if you say that the fsf limiting the free use of software per se is a bad precedent, then you are not understanding the basic fact that the defense of fredom X necesarilly implies the restriction of right Y.

The FSF does not have to "defend the greater freedom", or even try to minimize the "amount" of freedom that it restricts in its efforts, it must only care for the protection of the particular freedoms that are of interest to its political objectives.

You did not, and still do not understand the issue (and me being or not being a condescending ass won't have any effect on your capacity to understand, i'm affraid), as it's clear when you say something like

"When someone calls themselves the "Free Software Foundation", they should be limiting the free use of the software as little as possible to further its greater freedom"

Believing that is naive. Or wicked.

The rest of you rant is preetty predictable given that basic misunderstanding.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus is on the record as saying a GPLv3 relicensed Solaris kernel would be one of the few things that would make him consider going through the (major) hassle of relicensing linux under the GPLv3, for license-compatibility for code sharing between the two.

Re:2 vs 3

[samkass]

What is the value of letting a company use and modify the Linux kernel if they can legitimitely lock out any usage of a modified kernel on that hardware?

Because the *software* is still forced to be free. Things like DRM and GPL3 that try to force restrictions on me that span out of the licensor's domain (ie. enforce what software must run on my hardware) irk me. GPL is a software license, and does a really good job at keeping software free. You can take TiVo's software and go make your own DVR hardware. Or do whatever you want with the software. That's the point-- it's a *software* license.

Re:2 vs 3

[fbjon]

What is the value of letting a company use and modify the Linux kernel if they can legitimitely lock out any usage of a modified kernel on that hardware? The real value is that they aren't using Windows Embedded.

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

Any time you see the word "should", it means the writer thinks that's the way things ought to happen. It doesn't mean the writer thinks that's the way things are currently happening, or the way they are going to happen. Perhaps it's you who just doesn't
understand.

Your equation works well if X and Y are well chosen. However, how, logically, does the imposition of "no trusted kernel signing" further the freedom of "everyone gets to see the source", unless as I already mentioned you don't trust it's the actual source?
How, logically, does "can't use it with a DRM system although the source and the DRM source are open and free" defend the freedom of "everyone gets to see the source"?

The FSF isn't the "Anti-DRM League". It isn't the "Open Source Code and Limited Applicability of Our Software Organization". It's the "Free Software Foundation". It should be promoting the freedom of the software. That's because honesty is typically considered a good thing.

What right to free use of the software isn't covered by the GPLv2? I keep pointing out the fallacies of your argument, and you keep quoting portions of my posts out of context and skirting the issue. The specific freedoms the FSF should be protecting are those it has been claiming to champion for so many years. Again, that's because honesty and integrity should mean something.

I am not naive. I may be wicked, depending on whom you ask. That has nothing to do with the fact that people are supposed to fight for what they say they're supporting, and not for something else entirely. In fact, most people would consider the opposite wicked.

The GPLv2 was the definitive document on Free Software for all practical purposes until GPLv3 came along. The FSF's manifesto documents aren't binding, and those aren't what most people outside the FSF used to consider how to license their code. If it was Free according to the GPL, it was Free Software. Linux, therefore, was Free Software. Now that some people are trying to say that GPLv3 is "Free" and GPLv2 is "not Free", they're saying Linus hates free software. It's a terribly specious argument. The GPLv2 hasn't changed. The people using it who don't want to go to the GPLv3 haven't changed. They still support GPLv2.

Until you admit that other people have other valid opinions, you're going to go nowhere in discussions like this one.

Re:2 vs 3

[ray-auch]

> Linus did a huge mistake, and that doesn't relate to GPLv3: he locked the kernel into a license that CANNOT be changed.

It _can_ be changed, but only by consent of all the copyright holders. That (as I have previously read explained publically by Linus - wish I could find the reference now...) is a _feature_ not a bug.

Linus deliberately did it this way so that not even he could single handedly change the licence. No one person or entity can. This is a strength - there is no single point of failure, no single target to corrupt.

It is also a potential weakness if the GPLv2 turns out to be ineffective at doing what Linus wanted it to do - since it would then be difficult to fix.

Overall, only time will tell if Linus' choice was a mistake, but so far, after about a decade and a half, Linux and GPLv2 are still looking pretty successful.

Re:2 vs 3

[ray-auch]

> exactly, the GPL has never been about protecting the Developer or the Developer's freedoms, but protecting the User and insuring the code is always available.

GPLv2 ensures the code is available. The TIVO code is available.

The user doesn't get protected by the GPL (even v3) - only the recipient of the distribution (which may or may not be the user). In GPLv3 this is made explicit in conveyance vs. propagation - if the software is conveyed to a user, they get rights, if it is propagated, they do not.

For instance, it is made very clear by the FSF that, for example, the user (ie. the voter) of a voting machine with GPLv3 software would _not_ aquire modification rights.

Similarly, the user of a PVR running GPLv3 software would not get modification rights if that PVR was rented. Since the GPLv3 protects the user, and the users will want/need to modify their PVRs (that is the rationale for the anti-tivo clause), rented PVRs (eg. as part of a TV package) will clearly never take off and achieve significant market penetration...

Re:2 vs 3

[krunk7]

Bullshit. That's like saying that because you pay taxes, you support torture! Or like saying since you support slashdot, which is part of a corporation, you're promoting the exploitation of poor chinese children! Linus believes that there's a difference between hardware and software, and that software shouldn't dictate hardware. That makes sense to me.

Henry David Thoreau would respectfully disagree. You might want to check out a couple of his works as well as others of the same mind. You may not agree with them, but they're not idiots and have very solid, well thought out reasons for claiming exactly the relationship your calling insane.

Re:2 vs 3

[krunk7]

Open source should not be about "preventing" proprietary software. And it usually isn't about that. Except in the GPL case. Open source should be about creating software and letting others use it in any way they want, no matter what political views they have. That's software 'freedom'.

Obviously some people disagree. Some disagree a little and will use GPLv2, some disagree a lot and will use GPLv3, some will complete agree and those will use BSD.

But here's the kicker: All of them OWN the code they wrote and are 100% within their rights to tell you and anyone else the conditions required to use *their* work. And since it does belong to them in every sense of the word, they have no moral imperative to do what *you* thing they *should* do with it.

Now, this has been beaten to death. But please realize that BSD is a license that maximizes the freedoms of the developer while GPL maximizes the freedoms of the user. I use both depending on who I want the code to benefit the most: users or developers.

Re:2 vs 3

[riceboy50]

Open source should not be about "preventing" proprietary software. And it usually isn't about that. Except in the GPL case. Open source should be about creating software and letting others use it in any way they want, no matter what political views they have. That's software 'freedom'. The GPL isn't about "open source" (also called "free as in beer"). It's about Free Software (also called "free as in freedom"). The two have some overlap, but assuredly have different goals.

"Give nothing back" sounds too much like the crazy BBS days when readers were rated on "upload to download ratios". On a separate note, this is going on even today in places like BitTorrent. I suspect it is important to all communities where shared resources are important.

Re:2 vs 3

[sumdumass]

I disagree.

You can disagree all you want. It doen't make that disagreement sound or valid.

Seems that everybody forgets that months ago Microsoft latest strategy against OSS was to cut "interoperability" and "patent protection" deals with every Linux distribution it could (a move that allowed them both to throw FUD and -potentially- profit on OSS at the same time).

Well, it isn't that everyone forgets, the fanaticism died down and they were able to look at the details of the deals to find that what was being said about them wasn't true. Only the truely foolish and the fanatics continue to spout ideas like you are.

It was the release of the GPLv3 (which among other things, closed that possibility) what made them back out; something which was accomplished without needing any actual project to change their license (the mere threat that it could happen was enough).

Well, it was more or less Novell that backed them out. But something more interesting is that Linspire, xandros or whatever it is called now and a few other companies made a deal with Microsoft knowing full well about the GPLv3 and what it said. Or are your forgeting about those?

I'd say that alone justify it's existence and is prove enough that there is a point to GPLv3.

I would say your either ignorant of how it didn't accomplish that or you are attempting to pump up the GPLv3 hoping that people are dumb enough to believe you. Either way, what I wouldn't say is that you are correct in your interpretation.

Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean that it's not better than it's predecessor (and it certainly doesn't mean it's worst). That said, I can understand that in some scenarios the new previsions are not exactly a win (TheRaven64 (641858) makes a good point a few post above), but for a lot of projects (especially those not concerned at all with embedded software) I think the GPLv3 is an improvement.

How much benefit and advantage is there really? I mean after to subtract all the hyperbole and misinformation? It isn't perfect because it doesn't do what it says to do. It won't stop Tivo, it won't stop patents from removing sections of software, it won't trick MS into giving a bunch of patents away, in fact, outside a very limited scope, it doesn't do anything the GPLv2 didn't already do but it does what little it attempts to do in a way that makes it incompatible with the GPLv2.

There are numerous ways almost each clause can easily be defeated. The entire push to get support for it was based around a lie that Novell and Microsoft was attempting to lock in a version of linux as the safe version. People laughed and joked all week long when Grokelaw did a breakdown of the MS-Novell deal and found it didn't offer protection on anything seen to be competing with MS. and very little protection on anything not made in connection to the MS-Novell deal. But the funny part is, if your weren't one that fell for the hype pushed by the FSF's account and believed Novells account of why, then you realized that the agreement has context and means a lot more under the story Novell stuck with. You then look at the FSF is claiming it will trick MS into giving it's IP away because of the GPLv3.

It really is sad if you take the blinders off and look back at the situation objectively. Somehow I suspect you won't do that. For some reason, I think you will deny that any other company made deals with MS in the same way Novell did after the cut off date and in some cases after the GPLv3 was final and released. Somehow, I think your perfectly happy thinking the GPLv3 is the shit when your basing this all off of manipulated information and missing facts. But that's OK, we have people that can pay attention and people that are looking around. They will inform you eventually.

Re:2 vs 3

[Darinbob]

But please realize that BSD is a license that maximizes the freedoms of the developer while GPL maximizes the freedoms of the user.

There's the middle ground though, where I've been stuck several times. With libraries and some code tools you end up as both a user and a developer. This was ickier back before the LGPL, and there's more elbow room for the "user" today. But most companies still have to avoid all LGPL code if they can't use dynamic linking (which is true for a lot of embedded systems). Thus as a user I absolutely can not use FSF libraries in some products, which is not 'freedom'.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting. Then why does it allow the hardware to lock me out of my software?

Re:2 vs 3

[sumdumass]

The amazing thing about your statement is that while it is true, not many have jumped to the replacement kernels.

This being noted, I'm not sure many would jump to the GPLv3 licenses Solaris when it is ready. I seem to think a few will make the switch but it will be an uphill battle both ways attempting to get a significant amount of support to have the claim of replacing the linux kernel. Generally, the better distros don't have the marketing that gets people excited and relying on users usually ends in people pissing others off instead of converting them.

Re:2 vs 3

[J.Y.Kelly]

Yes, but as has been pointed out to you, you've wandered outside of strictly software. It obviously doesn't matter to you, but consider that the argument is (roughly) equivalent to complaining that some GPLed i386 assembly code wont run on a PPC.

GPLv3 does wander out of software but this is intentional, and in my opinion at least a good thing. I believe that equating the Tivo case to making i386 code run on PPC is misleading though (and this is the crux of the matter).

The whole point of the Tivo argument was that Tivo made changes to the kernel specifically to make it work with the Tivo device. They then released those changes as required by GPLv2. However, at the same time they introduced a code signing check in the hardware which meant that even if you had the code you couldn't change it and run it on the device it was designed to work with.

I suppose the argument boils down to why you want the code to be free. If you just want to be able to see other peoples code to use in other projects then I guess GPLv2 is all you need. If however you want to be able to take a device which runs on GPLd code and be able to make changes to that code to alter the functionality of that device (even just to fix bugs), then only GPLv3 can give you that.

People make a strong argument for open source software arguing that it protects you against the people or company who wrote it going out of business and not being able to support you. If you have the code you can hire someone to fix it and go on your way. This all breaks down if the people who wrote the code have some other mechanism of stopping you from running a modified version. In that case you're no better off than with closed source.

To take this to an extreme, try imagining that Trusted Computing takes off in a big way such that all consumer computers will only run trusted code. Now imagine that getting a code signing licence is REALLY expensive so that only large corporations can afford one. Now let one of those corporations release a linux distribution. Even if they then release the source to everything they change you won't be able to make use of that on any consumer hardware because you won't have the keys required to sign the resulting binaries to allow them to run on the trusted platform.

This is (hopefully) an extreme and unlikely situation, but it's the scenario that the new clauses in GPLv3 are try to protect against.

Re:2 vs 3

[TheRaven64]

The amazing thing about your statement is that while it is true, not many have jumped to the replacement kernels. That's largely due to two things. Firstly, Linux is 'good enough.' For pretty much any given task, you can find a kernel that would be a better choice than Linux, but Linux is not too bad at most stuff and is more likely to work with whatever random hardware you might have.

The other thing is marketing. Linux has brand recognition now. The old UNIX crowd recognise names like BSD and Solaris, but management types have heard of 'Linux.' Other people have heard of 'Red Hat' or 'Ubuntu' and don't care about the kernel. If you put them down in front of Nexenta instead of Ubuntu then they probably wouldn't tell the difference. Likewise, if Canonical decided to release a future version of Ubuntu with a non-Linux kernel, I doubt many people would notice and a lot of people would switch to the new kernel.

With Debian, installing HURD instead of Linux is not much more complicated than just installing a new kernel deb. Few people do, however, because there are no real compelling reasons to migrate. If the Linux license became unacceptable or the current trends in Linux kernel stability continued then it's entirely possible that it would be worth the effort to wrap, for example, the FreeBSD kernel up in a deb with Linux ABI emulation turned on and distribute that for Debian/Ubuntu.

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

ehem. i think you built a strawman of my original possition and my subsequent reply and proceeded to bash it. in regards to that:

1.- i have not said that i have the only valid possition. I have not said that all other possitions are invalid. I'm only saying that you originally made the mistake of believing that the fsf should generally defend the greater freedom (abstractly) in the use of software (and software only).

2.- From that mistake stems your point about the fsf "restricting some freedoms is bad precedent". To me is the other way around: the fsf HAS to limit freedoms, the question is not about how much freedom, or if it restricts the freedom at all, is about which freedoms. I was ONLY arguing THAT PART. at least until now.

Now to the rest of what you say:

You could interpret the intentions of the fsf in a restricted sence, as a movement for the freedom to "see the source", applicable only to software. Or you can interpret the intentions of the fsf as a movement for the freedom to tinker and to share the results of your tinkering with your fellow human beings.

If you believe the first, then yeah, the anti-tivoization clauses could seem out of place to you in the effort to preserve the "freedom to see the source". If you believe the second, then the anti-tivoization clauses are just common sense.

The OSI crowd and ESR and Linus believe the first... They "like" the bazaar model and all that just because they believe that it is an "efficient" way to make "Good Software". They have no interest in the freedoms preserved by the fsf and gnu per se, but just as means to make Good Software. This is a completely different movement, with a completely different agenda. But jumping on the wagon of the fsf, using its licenses, presenting yourself as some kind of evangelist of the movement and then crying foul when the fsf takes the obviuos steps needed to acomplish its objectives is, at least, opportunistic.

So, yeah, you can keep showing the "fallacies" in my argument, and insist on the spoureous relation between kernel-signing and the "freedom to see the source". But i am NOT talking about this. I dont give a damn about your "freedom to see the source".

And more importantly, the fsf doesn't too!

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

...but consider that the argument is (roughly) equivalent to complaining that some GPLed i386 assembly code wont run on a PPC. You can still do whatever you want with the code...

It's not equivalent at all. It's more like complaining that some GPL'd i386 assembly code won't run on exactly the same i386 it was designed for just because you changed it.

This places requirements on the hardware as well as the software.

No it doesn't; hardware makers can do whatever they want! They can still put all the locks they want in the machine; they just have to give the user the key. It's a social requirement, not a hardware one.

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

We can't have an open source DRM media player even if we want one.

But the idea doesn't even make sense! If you care about it being Free Software, then you also care about it not having DRM; if you don't mind it having DRM, then you shouldn't mind it being closed-source! Either you care about having control over the damn thing, or you don't! Any other opinion is logically inconsistent.

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

The GPL is (supposedly) about sharing your changes with the community.

No, it's actually not!

The GPL is a about giving users the freedom to control their tools. No more, no less. In fact, that was the whole fucking point of my previous post!

By the way, "sharing your changes with the community" doesn't make sense as "what the GPL is about" because, for quite a while after the GPL was created, there was no "commmunity!" It was just RMS and GNU, pretty much by itself, making GCC and whatnot. The "community" was invented by Linus, much later. So no, the GPL is not about the community. The community is a side effect. The GPL is about giving users the freedom to control their tools. Period.

...but you shouldn't be doing things the community doesn't approve of.

The community is not important. Freedom is important. Consider an analogy to the "real world:" 60 years ago, the "community" didn't approve of desegregating the American South. Yet it was still important to do, because it increased the freedom of black people. This is the same sort of issue: I don't care if you "approve" of it; it's necessary!

Freedom does not include telling people that they have to follow your moral beliefs, and you do not have the right to make the company help you modify your device as you see fit.

Sure, I completely agree! But the company has the freedom to choose not to use GPLv3 code, and if they don't agree to the terms then they don't have the right to use it. Fair's fair, you know!

Besides, there's a huge fucking difference between trying to force the company to "help you modify your device" and trying to force it to "not prohibit you from modifying your device!" The GPLv3 only tries to accomplish the latter, not the former!

You know what? If you want to make your TiVo run exactly how you want it to, great... but TiVo isn't obligated to help you in that endeavor.

Here's another analogy: Say I'm at the bottom of a pit, and trying to get out. Sure, TiVo isn't obligated to help me get out... except, wait! TiVo is the one who dug the fucking pit in the first place, covered it with leaves, stuck a sign saying something to the effect of "Free candy!" in the middle, and lured me into it! After all that, is TiVo still not responsible for solving the problem it itself created?!

And if you choose, as a punishment, to try to not allow them to benefit from the work you're supposedly giving away as a benefit to all mankind...

Irrelevant, because your supposition is wrong.

... then you don't really believe in that altruism, you're just paying lip-service.

What altruism?! RMS just wanted his fucking printer to work!

Re:2 vs 3

[mwlewis]

It's not equivalent at all. It's more like complaining that some GPL'd i386 assembly code won't run on exactly the same i386 it was designed for just because you changed it.

Yes, that's why I said roughly. But the important part was that the analogy had a hardware component.

It's a social requirement, not a hardware one.

Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't make sense without some reference to the hardware. Which was my point. You're talking about requiring them to give information regarding how the hardware operates. I'm not arguing about whether they should or shouldn't, but just the simple fact that GPL3 goes into territory that some people don't agree is a pure software/copyright issue. The user can still do whatever they want with the code, but some hardware will not run it after it's been changed.

Having said that, I think the GPL3 certainly falls in line with the traditions of the FSF and GNU philosophies. But not everyone has the same enthusiasm for those issues as, say RMS, and they may have other reasons for opposing this particular part of the GPL3.

Re:2 vs 3

[mrchaotica]

The user can still do whatever they want with the code...

No, they can't, because "whatever they want" includes modifying it and running it on the same hardware! In reality, the GPLv2 means that the user can do some -- but not all -- of what they want with the code, and that's just not acceptable.

...just the simple fact that GPL3 goes into territory that some people don't agree is a pure software/copyright issue.

Well yeah, I'll concede that point; I (hopefully!) never claimed that the GPLv3 wasn't different than the GPLv2.

Re:2 vs 3

[sumdumass]

Well, I think your making my point on why it isn't happening which is probably the same reason it won't happen in the future with solaris.

I mean you just showed how trivial it is to use Hurd or BSD as a debian kernel and that there are a lot of drop in replacements that the majority of users wouldn't know a thing about. And yes you admit that there isn't much of a need to do it so there isn't much support for doing so. This is probably the same thing that will happen with Solaris. There are a lot of the same oblivious people that wouldn't care about the GPLv3 more then the GPLv2 when it comes to the kernel.

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

I think more correctly you could say, "The FSF does care about freedom to see and use the source, but they also care about these other things."

The problem is the "other things" were not codified in GPLv2. In the FSF's eyes, that means they're improving upon GPLv2 with GPLv3 by codifying those other things.

That's the rub, though. Lots of other people who agreed totally with the GPLv2 don't see it the same way. They think the GPLv2 restricts enough freedoms and allows much. They think GPLv3 restricts freedoms that don't need to be restricted and that it takes away ones they actually want.

This article at Forbes is an interview with Linus, in which he says he does think what Tivo does is stupid, and that he cares. He just doesn't care enough to worry about it. Linus also says that the place to fight locked-down hardware is in hardware licenses and that the place to fight DRM is in the license for the content you produce. He also says he's worried about the freedom of the software because that's what he wrote. He thinks the freedom of hardware is up to the hardware makers and the freedom of content is up to content makers. Software licenses trying to control what you can do with hardware and content step over their bounds, so to speak.

So no, Linus is not against the goals of the FSF. He just thinks that software, hardware, and content should each take care of their own licenses.

The writer of a software program gets to license that software, but should they be able to dictate the license of content that's used with it, or that it can only be used with content of a particular license? That's what the disagreement really boils down to. The FSF is trying to promote the freedom of GNU software authors at the expense of the freedom of hardware and content developers instead of spreading out and promoting freedom from within the hardware and content realms. Their intentions are good, but many of us think the GPLv3 is bad execution of those intentions.

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

well, yes, that's what the whole disagrement eventually comes down to: open source... but open source for what? the GPLv2 was good enough when the main obstacle towards substantial freedom (to sum it up somehow) was the closed source of distributed software. It was a practical impediment. Open source in itself has no vlaue at all.

Now there are other impediments. equally practical. they must be overcome. GPLv3 is not only a good execution of steps towards the defence of freedom, is a necessity.

and Linus... he says he doesn't care enough to worry about. In practical terms that's the same as "he doesn't care", i don't give a damn what he cares for or not in the privacy of his house. Not caring enough to worry about = not giving a damn, in practical terms.

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

Open source has lots of value.

What's wrong with software licenses being for software, hardware licenses concerning hardware, and content licenses taking care of content?

If Linus is only producing software and not hardware, why should he concern himself with the freedom of the hardware?

The main difference between your point of view and the one you're attacking is that you want to tie everything up in one knot. Am I wrong about that? Is there some reason that works better than having GPL-style hardware licenses and CC or GFDL content licenses along with the GPL? Or is the whole problem that you're against mixing and matching licenses of the different parts of a complete system on principal?

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

the problem is very simple: if you want to preserve freedom X, you must prevent every possible restriction to freedom X. If you prevent one restriction, but allow others, you are not effectively protecting freedom X.

I do not want to allow you power to restrict my freedom in any way. if I forbid you to restrict it in way 1, but do not do anything over way 2, I have allowed you power to restrict my freedom.

If in the past, we only knew of way 1 of attacking freedom, and consequently forbid it, and then sudenly way 2 rears its ugly head, it is our (moral? political?) imperative to forbid way 2 also, if we want to keep avoiding attacks on freedom.

Now, the real problem, is that i don't trust the free convictions of people who say that GPLv3 is some kind of treason. I do not doubt their practical interest in the openness of software, but by allowing some ways of restriction to freedom, they are (practically) abandoning the pretension of freedom at all. there's no middle ground in this. SO, where are the arguments *in favor* of GPLv2 over GPLv3? why should we NOT restrict some possible method of attacking our freedom?

Should we care about adoption of software? shold we make licenses so Big Biz inc. can use our software, and in that effort leave gaping holes in the protection of our freedom? should we have any interest in preserving the hardware manufacturer's right to enforce vendor lock in, or implement DRM?

i don't see why.

And since not forbiding those rights of Big Biz inc. and hw manufacturers puts our freedom in danger (and they have shown in the past that that's exactly what they will do if we give them the chance) then it would be irresponsable for us not to do it.

ps: i think that you used the word "value" in a economical sense. open source has a lot of (economic) value, as it is a superior method for building software. But i used the word value in a moral sense. In this sense, OS has no value at all, except as a prerequisite for software to be free, wich is the real moral value we are trying to preserve.

Re:2 vs 3

[Anonymous Coward]

I speak for a lot of people when I say chill out, it's just software. It's not worth having a heart attack over.

Re:2 vs 3

[w000t]

I disagree.

You can disagree all you want. It doen't make that disagreement sound or valid.

Yes, of course. Unfortunately for you, that goes both ways.

Seems that everybody forgets that months ago Microsoft latest strategy against OSS was to cut "interoperability" and "patent protection" deals with every Linux distribution it could (a move that allowed them both to throw FUD and -potentially- profit on OSS at the same time).

Well, it isn't that everyone forgets, the fanaticism died down and they were able to look at the details of the deals to find that what was being said about them wasn't true. Only the truely foolish and the fanatics continue to spout ideas like you are.

Sorry, but bashing and name calling won't get you nowhere, and judging by the level of your "argumentation" I'm pretty sure you're the one acting as a fanatic. Perhaps it would be best if you just shed some light on the details you're talking about which supposedly disprove my view.

It was the release of the GPLv3 (which among other things, closed that possibility) what made them back out; something which was accomplished without needing any actual project to change their license (the mere threat that it could happen was enough).

Well, it was more or less Novell that backed them out. But something more interesting is that Linspire, xandros or whatever it is called now and a few other companies made a deal with Microsoft knowing full well about the GPLv3 and what it said. Or are your forgeting about those?

No, Microsoft was actually the only one to back out from the deal: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/07-05statement.mspx (Novell response: http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=365)
Microsoft-Xandros: june 4, 2007 http://www.xandros.com/news/press_releases/xandros_microsoft_collaborate.html
Microsoft-LGE: june 6, 2007 http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/jun07/06-06MSLGEPR.mspx
Microsoft-Linspire: june 13, 2007 http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9642338710.html
GPLv3 release: june 29, 2007 http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched
But I'm sure they had studied the license extensively (even though the GPLv3 was released weeks after the last deal...)

I'd say that alone justify it's existence and is prove enough that there is a point to GPLv3.

I would say your either ignorant of how it didn't accomplish that or you are attempting to pump up the GPLv3 hoping that people are dumb enough to believe you. Either way, what I wouldn't say is that you are correct in your interpretation.

Ooops, you caught me there. I guess there's no point in keeping it secret any longer: I'm a GPLv3 zealot payed by RMS himself to post on Slashdot as part of the worldwide FSF conspiracy to take over the world.... (you know, your username almost honours you...)
Back to reality, I stand by my original point: even is the GPLv3 were impractical in most cases, it has already had a significant positive impact on OSS by putting an end to that. I'm afraid that to prove your point you'll have to do a bit more than posing a false dichotomy where I must either be completely ignorant or have some obscure agenda.

Just because it's not perfect it doesn't mean that it's not better than it's predecessor (and it certainly doesn't mean it's worst). That

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

I think you're entirely sidestepping at least two of my questions here.

I used the word "value" as neither economic nor moral. I used it as philosophical, as in open source has a value in preserving freedom. It's not as much freedom as you want the license to preserve, but part is better than none, yes?

I'm not talking about the freedom of Big Biz, Inc, either. I'm talking about the very real limits GPLv3 puts on the end user it's meant to protect. Many end users want to use Free Software, but might want to listen to the occasional restricted content. By making that an illegitimate activity, it's limiting the end user. The end user might want to use an OS kernel that's free, but might for security reasons need to run a signed kernel on a particular machine (I'm not talking Tivo here, but someone who needs to make sure their server isn't being tampered with). If you take the freedom from Tivo by saying you can't run the software as a signed binary, though, you're also taking it from the person who's signing it himself for his own use.

Free software licenses can protect the freedom of software. Free hardware licenses can protect the freedom of hardware. Free content licenses can protect the freedom of content. Demanding in your free software license that only certain hardware and content can be used takes real power away from real end users. Why is it so wrong to attack the problem on the three fronts you experience it rather than trying to tie it all into the software licensing?

Re:2 vs 3

[SanityInAnarchy]

Apparently some GPL fans feel that the political aims are more important than the engineering aims.

By that logic, any license other than public domain is about "political aims".

But look at the history of BSD, and you will see what these "political aims" can do to help the engineering ones. Specifically, it discourages fragmentation. It doesn't prevent it, obviously, but it stops the situation where a company will simply take BSD code, close it, slap the attribution on it and be done with it. If the company were to use GPL'd code instead, they would be forced to release their contributions back to the community (or not use that code).

I hope I don't have to spell it out for you completely, but having one open source project that's actively maintained is much better than having ten closed projects which do mostly the same thing, all with their advantages and disadvantages, and a completely stagnant open project.

The goal is not to promote reuse, except by people who agree with them.

So what?

Would you rather I release my code under some Shareware license, with a nag screen to Paypal me some cash every five minutes?

It's my code. If I'm donating my blood, sweat, and tears to a project, I think I should have some say in how it's used.

But if TiVo had decided not to use Linux, would these GPL people be happier?

Possibly.

I wouldn't be, you know, happy about the situation, but I also wouldn't feel taken advantage of.

If someone doesn't like DRM, then bitch at Hollywood or Hughes Satellite, not the company that's trying to create a useful product under real world conditions.

I am not bitching at TiVo. I'm just no longer donating code to them. If they want my code, they can hire me.

But you are missing a very crucial point here: It's not only that TiVo is implementing DRM. It's that they are using that DRM, among other things, to restrict access to the very code that is supposedly GPL'd. The intent of the GPL is that anyone can modify software they've purchased (or obtained for free), and TiVo does not allow that, even with GPL'd stuff. GPLv3 makes it so they can't do that anymore, at least with GPLv3 stuff.

In other words, if I wrote a cryptographic library, and you use it to implement DRM on movies, that's fair. I don't like it, but it's fair. But it really does seem unreasonable when I can't even patch my own library (that I wrote), on my own hardware (that I bought), and have it run. (All hypothetical -- I didn't write a cryptographic library.)

Open source should be about creating software and letting others use it in any way they want, no matter what political views they have. That's software 'freedom'.

That's developer freedom. And I get that, I really do -- I do develop some commercial software, and the issue of licensing does come up a lot. And we're really happy when we can find BSD'd or public-domain stuff.

But "free software" is not about freedom of the software company. It is about freedom of the end-user.

And you're right, that's not what Open Source is about -- all Open Source is about is the ability to get source code. But that does not equal freedom, for either software company or end-user.

Re:2 vs 3

[mwlewis]

No, they can't, because "whatever they want" includes modifying it and running it on the same hardware! In reality, the GPLv2 means that the user can do some -- but not all -- of what they want with the code, and that's just not acceptable.

OK, I think I found the right analogy (no cars, I promise). I understand that Tivoization is not acceptable to you. We weren't talking about you. :P

Consider that someone is writing some application, Foo. Foo uses a library called Bar. Foo's author wants to make sure that Foo uses a specific version of Bar (the reason doesn't really matter). He does some sort of checking in Foo to verify that it's the Bar he wants. If Bar is LGPL2, then Foo can have a proprietary license. If Bar is GPL2, then Foo must be released with a compatible license, and the author of Foo will have to release information about it (in this case, source code, etc). In both cases, he has to make Bar source available.

Now, if you assume that instead of a library, assume that Foo is a piece of hardware. The GPL2 doesn't cover anything about making available information on the hardware. The GPL3 does. So with respect to Tivoization, we can say that GPL2 is to GPL3 as LGPL2 is to GPL2.

We all get that you disagree with this, but you've probably come to grips with the fact that there are people out there who still release their code as LGPL2 (and even things like BSD!). Please stop saying that you think it's wrong. We all got that a while ago. That doesn't mean that it's the Right thing. Ideally, I'd agree with you, too, but back here in the real world, not everyone does, and there are sometimes even legitimate reasons to do so.

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

Now i'm getting worried. What you just said about the GPLv3 is simply not true. let's see.

1.- "Many end users want to use Free Software, but might want to listen to the occasional restricted content. By making that an illegitimate activity, it's limiting the end user".

FALSE!

The GPL does not restrict any user form using GPLed software to ACCESS drm-protected content. Even more, the GPL does not restrict any user from *implementing* DRM schemes using GPLed software. The only thing that GPL provides for in regards to DRM, is a waiver of the rights of developers to enforce anti circunvention law over GPLed works, something that has NOTHING to do with the software (anticircunvention, i mean).

Literally, from Section 3, paragraph 2:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures

2.- "The end user might want to use an OS kernel that's free, but might for security reasons need to run a signed kernel on a particular machine. If you take the freedom from Tivo by saying you can't run the software as a signed binary, though, you're also taking it from the person who's signing it himself for his own use."

FALSE!

The GPL does not forbid the execution of signed binaries. The GPL does not even prohibit hardware that checks for signatures or cryptographic keys in itself, it only requires that you do not use GPLed code to enforce such restrictions *against the user*. It specifically requires that you distribute keys needed for execution along with the software (and hardware, obviosly). If you want to use your own keys, for security reassons, you are welcomed. BUT, if you *distribute* a "consumer product" cotaining GPLed code and said consumer product requires keys/passwords/signatures, you must provide them, or means to circunvent them. To the end user. To run, for example, his own crypto-system, with his own keys.

From the "Quick guide to the GPLv3"

Distributors are still allowed to use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they gave you. The GNU Project itself uses GnuPG to prove the integrity of all the software on its FTP site, and measures like that are beneficial to users. GPLv3 does not stop people from using cryptography; we wouldn't want it to. It only stops people from taking away the rights that the license provides you--whether through patent law, technology, or any other means.

EVEN MORE! the GPLv3 doesn't even prohibits you from enforcing checks outside the GPLed work. For example, in a network that requires authentification of the executed binary in the clients for access. This is *specifically* covered in the text of the GPL, probably as an alternative to kernel-signing (see Section 6, paragraph 6).

Finally, what you say in the end is wrong too. This is a free software license that seeks to defend the freedoms asociated with software from the impossitions ON SOFTWARE that restrictions for hardware or content entail. You are still free to make and distribute systems with hardware or content restrictions, but if you do, those restrictions must not tamper with the freedoms associated to software.

I think you are missing that

1.- the restrictions to hardware and content are there only because and in the measure that they do restrict the freedoms associated with software.

3.- this restrictions are *necessary* if we want to *preserve* the freedom of software.

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures

The first part of that specifically says "with respect to the covered work". The part that concerns me is "you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against' the work's users, your or third parties' legal right to forbid circumvention of technological measures", which does not specifically mention anything about it applying to only the work in question. It's a completely separate phrase from the first part of that quote. Third parties that have legal rights about anti-circumvention are movie studios, record labels, proprietary software houses, and more. That might not be the intent, but that's how the wording reads, so that's how many people will deal with the license.

By requiring that someone distributes a trusted private key, it defeats the purpose of private key cryptography and the whole question of signing the binary becomes laughable. Better would be to force the hardware vendor to allow the user to add a public key of his own to the firmware and to allow checking against that key instead of the original with a disclaimer that the hardware manufacturer is no longer liable. Even better would be to require the vendor selling the hardware to vet and sign improved versions sent to them by third parties, but that'd be too much of a burden on the vendor.

"his is a free software license that seeks to defend the freedoms asociated with software from the impossitions ON SOFTWARE that restrictions for hardware or content entail." I could just as easily say it's a software license that imposes restrictions on hardware and content for the benefit of the software's freedom. Is that a fair way to word it?

I'm not against the GPLv3 as a new license available. It has its place. I just don't think it takes the place fully of GPLv2. I think they're both licenses worthy of consideration for people to use. I think giving people a hard time for sticking with GPLv2 instead of jumping on the v3 bandwagon is an unwise move, because mostly free is better than not free at all. The nasty attitude many have (and I'm not accusing you, this has stayed (for the most part, after that initial hump) pretty civil although heated) could sway a lot of people not toward GPLv3 but away from the GPL altogether. That seems to be the exact opposite of what FSF supporters would want.

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

1.- the right to legal action upon circunvention is the right to legal action against modification, wich is one of the specific freedoms (freedom 1) that the GPL wants to defend. It is against the spirit of the GPL. If you want to use GPLed work, you must not forbid or penally persecute those trying to make modifications. As Bruce Perens has already stated in this very same thread, that does not prohibit the implementation of DRM techonology at all, it just states that if you use GPLed work, this can not be taken into consideration for purposes of aplication of anticircunvention clauses cotained in the DMCA or any other such act.

I just want to point out that you just went form the legitimate user trying to acces DRMed content (whose rights allegedly we where affecting and shouldn't) to content creators and third parties that do not, in principle, have nothing to say in a software license, and whose rights should be (and are) defended somewhere else.

2.- No, it does not defeat the purpose of the user that you put up as a counter example: i want to run signed binaries in my hardware for security reasons. This is legit, and permited under the GPL. I want to give you a computer with GPLed code, and means to modify and update that code, but locked up behind a crypto key or signature. This is not legit, and forbidden. If you use GPLed work, and need it to be updatable, then you must accept all updates. If you use GPLed work, and do not want to accept third partie's mods, put it in a ROM, and distribute updates thru other means (ROM replacement? online auth?). If you want to be the only one to be able to make changes to the software under any circumstance, do not use free software, as what you want to do it's, by definition, un-free. ie, stay away from our free code. and our license. and our movement.

3.- it does not impose restrictions on hardware, only to software. You are still free to produce any hardware that you want, provided that IF you include GPLed works inside it, you do not take steps to actively prohibit the freedoms that we want to preserve. You are still free to design and implement DRM schemes, provided that you do not persecute does trying to examine (even perfect?) said schemes.

Nobody forces you to put GPLed works inside this kind of artifacts, you are always free to reimplement the same features as a locked source under any other license. Which comes down to the obvious: GPL covers only work licensed under the GPL. Hardware is not licensed under the GPL. Content is not licensed under the GPL. Software that interacts with them is, and if you need closed source, propietary software, then why o why do you want to use GPLed work?

4.- I disagree. The heat is not upon the OSIers, but against the FSF, who has been called traitors to say the least. This whole issue has shown who among our movement have a real interest in freedom, and who have an interest in free beer and open source. But i couldn't care less who's got more heat, really.

The issue finally comes down to: if you truly believe that freedom to run, study, modify, copy, distribute, improve and release and execute software are freedoms that need to be defended (as stated by the FSF since 1986), then you should use GPLv3, GPLv2 is not effective to protect those very same freedoms. If you have reassons to stick with GPLv2, then you are not interested in freedom, just in open source. So yes, if you appear in public speaking for free software, and calling the fsf traitors, and pontificating about what the FSF should do (and i'm not saying this of you, honestly. You might be commenting, by you are not in a possition to pontificate. not here at least, so, honestly, i'm talking about linus and ESR and the like) out of your alleged interest in freedom, and decide to stick to GPLv2, you are going to get heat.

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

"The issue finally comes down to: if you truly believe that freedom to run, study, modify, copy, distribute, improve and release and execute software are freedoms that need to be defended (as stated by the FSF since 1986), then you should use GPLv3, GPLv2 is not effective to protect those very same freedoms."

I think this statement is at the heart of our disagreement. I feel the GPLv2 does an admirable job of protecting all of those freedoms within its scope. The GPLv3 stretches that scope, and will be the right license for many people because of that. However, there's not one of those freedoms listed that GPLv2 does not protect with some effectiveness.

To say it's as fully effective as GPLv3 for running/executing would be dishonest in the context of Tivo. However, people are still free to execute Tivo's changes along with further changes they make themselves. They just need hardware other than stock Tivo hardware to do so (another device or a hard-hacked Tivo box). If there's a more open alternative for hardware (there are several right now), then the only complaint is that Tivo sells a proprietary piece of hardware.

You don't even need to be a Tivo customer to make use of their changes, because their customers are free to redistribute the source, too. There is a bit of a slippery slope, I think, between Tivo locking their boxes down and users not having any alternatives from anywhere to run the software. In the case that we actually slide down that slope, the extra protection of GPLv3 will be necessary. Right now, I think it's trying to prevent a situation that probably won't happen anyway, or to punish Tivo specifically for sticking to the letter but not the spirit of GPLv2. Those are both fine, and the FSF and its supporters have every right to do both of those things. To try to damn Linus and ESR for not participating in that further part of the movement I think is unfair.

I also think it's unfair to go so far as to call the FSF people traitors to the cause. The GPLv3 does what v2 did and more. It's not like it's the exact opposite of v2. People can agree or disagree with the new standard the FSF is trying to set, but it's not traitorous. Stubborn and overzealous might be fair enough adjectives if people feel strongly enough about the changes, but saying they're abandoning the people happy with v2 is silly and disingenuous.

As the fSF made an open invitation to use GPLv2, I think it's silly that people should be expected to give it up for a new license that does more. I think it's equally silly of the people wanting to stick with v2 to expect the FSF to stand still. I think both sides have good arguments, but that they both take them to extremes. The best freedom for the developer is probably to be able to choose freely GPLv2, GPLv3, or either version of the GPL "or later". The best freedom overall for the end user might be the target of GPLv3, but I'm still personally in favor of OHL hardware and CC content alongside the GPLv2 as I think it will accomplish more in the long run.

Re:2 vs 3

[galoise]

i agree, that is the heart of the specific disagreement.

Yes, GPLv2 is efective for most freedoms, in most cases. But since it has a few holes, the freedoms it protects could perfectly go to hell completely, in some cases.

To prevent those cases, we need to broaden the restrictions on rights that the GPL enforces.

You are opposed on principle to these restrictions, or think that the restrictions imposed should be as little as needed. I think that we are entitled and morally obligated to restrict as much as is needed, not more, nor less.

We could argue that fundamental disagreement, but i *seriously* doubt that we are going to be able to solve here in a reasonable amount of time.

Now, i agree with the rest of what you said: a lot of flame has been thrown at this, and a lot has been exagerated. I think that having past the flame throwing between us, we can live with the really relevant fundamental disagreement (or keep talking about it, but then these posts are going to get *really* long) about the relation between rights and freedoms, and wether we should judge their restrictions on a relative scale (and minimize them on principle), or an absolute scale where you either let or don't let do (and enforce what we need, no more no less).

(incidentally, this is the issue that i thought you did not understand. but this is not personal, half of contemporary political philosophers think the same, and are confused in the same sense... starting with rawls and what we call liberals everywhere but the united states. I must say that i didn't intended it to be as offending as to get a "condescending ass" thrown back at me, but he!, i guess i can sound a little harsh sometimes, sorry :)

I disagree with the last part of your post: i don't think the GPLv3 is going to affect the proliferation of CC and OH licenses. I could even argue that the advances in the protection of freedoms in one of this distinct but related aspects are always beneficial to the other two, and that i take the GPLv3 as an advance.

In the end, i don't see a valid reason to *oppose* to the GPLv3. Not in principle (i don't give a rat's ass about tivo's or EMI's rights), not tactically (i don't think is going to affect adoption a big deal), not strategically (i think that it's going to help CC and OHL, actually).

Re:2 vs 3

[mr_mischief]

I'll keep this brief, since we're mostly in agreement about where we disagree now. :-)

It's not that I think any version of the GPL will help OHL or CC directly (although it's obvious that the GPL and similar licenses inspired both in a big way). It's that I think that if free hardware and free content as well as free software are important, it's good to stand firmly in all three areas. I think The Tivo-style issues are best dealt with by having other hardware being explicitly open not because I think the goal of the GPLv3 is wrong, but because I think the freedoms lost to proprietary hardware are broader than even the GPLv3 addresses and that the GPL will never, being a software license, be able to effect changes in hardware as well as OHL.

By having the software, hardware, and content rights of the user bundled up in the GPLv3 (and not quite adequately other than the software rights) we lose both flexibility in which rights we care most about (Linus's complaint, I think) and the ability to effect the other two areas broadly and specifically enough. I think most people in favor of the GPL for freedom instead of pragmatically as you've made the distinction, should support freedom in hardware and content, too.

I'm not the absolutist that RMS is. I don't think all closed-source proprietary software is wrong. I don't think that about hardware or content, either. I do think there should be a strong way to protect the work of people willinbg to share from those who would try to undermine that, though. I think the strengths of being able to work with people interested in just free software here, just free software there, and just free content over in the corner in addition to people concerned with all three would be really nice and a good way to spread the freedom, too.

Re:Wether it's true or not...

[autocracy]

I don't believe so. I'll be half-assed and make somebody else verify this for me as I'm too busy to grok the kernel license at the moment, but I believe that the GPL v2 found in the kernel sources leaves off the part that says "or any later revision."

lookin for a karma whore. . .

[ookabooka]

Could somebody give a link to a good description of the differences between the two? My understanding was the GPL v3 essentially made it so that once code was committed, the committer implicitly gave up rights to any patentable material relevant to what they committed. I can understand that this would make people wary of committing code because they might inadvertently give an algorithm to the public domain. What would happen with the GPL v2 then? The company could order a cease and desist to the open source project because it violated one of their patents, even if they themselves provided the code?

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[cromar]

From FSF (This is the meat of the patent section.)

Discriminatory patents are restricted as follows: A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[theonlyaether]

This was the best I could find so far as summaries go: http://www.sandw.com/assets/attachments/CLIENT_ADV._-_Open_Source_Software_(B0670583).PDF
From here: http://www.sandw.com/news-publications-155.html

More info that's a headache to read here, also a little older but probably up to date: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060118155841115

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[moderatorrater]

That's true, but we're not discussing that difference. The difference that we're mostly discussing here is that if you produce hardware that uses open source code, you have to let the user run modified code on that device. Tivo uses linux on all their boxes but they have a checksum to make sure that if the software is modified, it won't run it. They do this because they are required to make sure that you can't use their device for widespread copyright infringement, to shield themselves from the MPAA.

Stallman, in the meantime, sees Tivo using their software but not allowing people to modify it and run it on their device, gets his panties in a bunch and decides that they need to modify the license to keep device manufacturers from doing that.

Linus, on the other hand, takes his evil corporate leanings and decides that hardware is different from software and that hardware manufacturers are, therefore, different from software developers and proclaims that hardware manufacturers should be able to do whatever they want.

Slashdot, in the meanwhile, get's a huge boner off of the conflict, especially Zonk, who's tickled pink that he doesn't even have to give misleading headlines and summaries to inflame people.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Panties in a bunch? RMS has a point. The point of the GPL is that you get to modify the software. On the Tivo, you can't modify the software because the Tivo folks found a loophole in the GPL that lets them use a hardware lock to prevent it. GPL3 closes the loophole. It's extremely unethical for the Tivo people to behave this way; they want something for free (Linux) but they don't want to follow the rules that come along with getting it for free, so they violate the spirit of the agreement if not the letter. And then they get mad when the bug in the GPL is fixed.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[SanityInAnarchy]

I can understand that this would make people wary of committing code because they might inadvertently give an algorithm to the public domain.

I don't really see how. I mean, if you're worried about giving an algorithm up, maybe you shouldn't be releasing the source in the first place?

Don't take that as a "we don't want your code" argument. It's more of an appeal to your own sanity. If that algorithm really is so critical to your success that you need to patent it, it's probably not something you want other people to know how to implement.

What would happen with the GPL v2 then? The company could order a cease and desist to the open source project because it violated one of their patents, even if they themselves provided the code?

If the project accepted that code, then yeah, pretty much. That's why people are so wary of Mono.

However, there are other rather large changes with the GPLv3 -- mostly, closing loopholes which revolve around the definition of "distribution" and the usefulness of "source code". Distribution is the easier one to explain -- if you're running a website on open source (Apache, etc), you are technically not "distributing" it, even if you get a million hits per day. Because you're not distributing it, you don't need to accept the GPL, and you don't need to give source code to visitors of your site.

As for "source code", the GPL was originally written not because Stallman wants to see the source, but because he wants to be able to modify any program he's running -- the original story is that Stallman made a modification to a printer driver (because they provided source, as a matter of consideration), but later, when the lab got a new printer, it did not come with source, so he could not make that modification.

Linus claims to use the GPL for a different reason: He only wants to be able to see the source -- see what people are doing with his code -- and then re-incorporate any useful changes they made back into the project.

GPLv3 is a problem because it closes some loopholes by which you could get the source code, but not be able to modify that same program and run it on the same hardware. This is the "Tivoization" argument -- Tivo gave you source code, but no actual Tivo player would let you compile and run a modified version. Specifically, the hardware would use checksums to verify that the software had not been modified.

Linus has no problem with Tivo -- in fact, he likes it, because his software gets used for more things, and he still gets source code to play with on non-Tivo devices. Stallman hates Tivo, because he can't buy a Tivo and start tinkering with it, so the source code, while useful, no longer serves that original purpose of the GPL.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[clem]

Panties in a bunch? RMS has a point. The point of the GPL is that you get to modify the software. On the Tivo, you can't modify the software because the Tivo folks found a loophole in the GPL that lets them use a hardware lock to prevent it. GPL3 closes the loophole. It's extremely unethical for the Tivo people to behave this way; they want something for free (Linux) but they don't want to follow the rules that come along with getting it for free, so they violate the spirit of the agreement if not the letter. And then they get mad when the bug in the GPL is fixed. I don't think I get how this is a breach of trust. Can the user still obtain the source code? Can they still alter the source and install the resulting kernel on a device that's not a Tivo, thereby creating their own DVR player? It sounds like this is the case.

But how is it a God-given right to hack the hardware you buy? I'll admit that this would be my personal preference for a device, and something I'd value highly enough to influence which electronics I buy. However, I don't see why manufacturers should be compelled to cater to my tastes. Ultimately, if I want I hackable DVR badly enough I'll build my own.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[Cairnarvon]

"Ultimately, if I want I hackable DVR badly enough I'll build my own."

That's exactly the same thing as saying that if you want hackable software, you'll write your own. Yes, it's an option, but it misses the point of the open source movement. The situation is so analogous it boggles my mind that people who should be getting it (because they presumably understand open source) don't seem to be getting it.

Here's the important point: nobody's compelling anyone to do anything.

It's your "God-given right" to hack hardware in the exact same way that it is to hack software, with all the same nuances. GPLv2 left a loophole for the former, GPLv3 doesn't.
RMS and others are saying people "should" be using GPLv3 in the same way open source advocates in general are saying people "should" be open-sourcing their stuff, but nobody's trying to close the option of still using GPLv2.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I don't see why manufacturers should be compelled to cater to my tastes.

This implies that you think software producers should be so compelled. How do you justify that? Are your tastes so important that you should have the power to force software companies to serve your will?

Personally, I don't think that either hardware or software companies should be compelled to cater to anyone's tastes. However, if either type of company elects to use code under the GPL then they should allow that code to be modified within the environment in which it is presented.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[marcosdumay]

"My understanding was the GPL v3 essentially made it so that once code was committed, the committer implicitly gave up rights to any patentable material relevant to what they committed."

Not exactly, it makes it so that you grant license to everybody use your patent on other GPLv3 programs, not all of them. You can still dual license your code and use your patents to squash the competition (unless they are GPLv3, of course).

The same happens with GPLv2, GPLv2+, and LGPL.

On my view, the biggest differences between GPLv2 and v3 are the compatibility clauses, the "anti MS-Novell like agreements" clause and the "hardware shall not prohibit modifications of my code" clause (AKA DRM clause). But I doubt the last one is really enforceable.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[Timothy Brownawell]

But how is it a God-given right to hack the hardware you buy? I'll admit that this would be my personal preference for a device, and something I'd value highly enough to influence which electronics I buy. However, I don't see why manufacturers should be compelled to cater to my tastes. Ultimately, if I want I hackable DVR badly enough I'll build my own.

Making it not hackable requires extra effort to reduce the functionality. There probably should be rules against this, but they'd need to handle the case of things like ATMs or voting machines where not being user-modifiable is a very important feature.

Of course, this discussion also misses the point entirely. And the point is: how can a "free" licence for a particular component forbid it's use with certain other (non-free) components? Doesn't this make the "free" component not actually free? Does it even achieve the goal of increasing freedom, or does it just mean that the "free" compenent gets ignored in favor of more legally compatible alternatives?

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[clem]

RMS and others are saying people "should" be using GPLv3 in the same way open source advocates in general are saying people "should" be open-sourcing their stuff, but nobody's trying to close the option of still using GPLv2. Perhaps, but I get the impression by all the vitriol surrounding this issue is that the only reason they aren't forcing people off the GPLv2 is that they can't. I haven't heard so many accusations against those who "hate freedom" since 9/11.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Spoken like a high school teacher. Perhaps then you're not the one who should be trying to explain this?

I mean, I get it to some degree. I get that GPLv3 seeks to raise the moral threshold in the use of the software it licenses. Perhaps the GPLv4 will guarantee that the software it governs is only distributed on environment-friendly hardware that was constructed in a country with conscientious labor laws? We can all get behind that, right? Or, at the very least, we can sneer at those who don't get behind it and stick to the morally sub-par GPLv3 or GPLv2.

Or maybe not. Perhaps a software license should just pertain to the software.

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[Chandon Seldon]

There's a radical difference between "giving up all patent rights" and "providing a patent license to downstream users / developers on the GPLv3 codebase". The GPLv3 makes it so that a company can't contribute code to a project and then sue people later for using that code under the GPLv3. It doesn't impact their patent rights at all for random competitors *unless* those competitors are using the GPLv3 program or a program derived from under it (and therefore still GPLv3 licensed).

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[david_thornley]

The difference in patent language is that GPLv3 is a lot more detailed and explicit. It sure looks to me like you can't distribute GPLv2 software that implements one of your patents, and then successfully sue somebody who incorporates that into their GPLv2 project.

There are differences between the two, but some of it is just differences in phrasing and language. The biggest difference is that GPLv3 software can't be Tivoized, while GPLv2 can. Other differences are that it's a bit more convenient to distribute GPLv3 software (you can distribute source through anonymous FTP, and you can distribute through P2P).

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

If that algorithm really is so critical to your success that you need to patent it, it's probably not something you want other people to know how to implement. Litmus test for any patent is that it should be able to be implemented by anyone of sufficient knowledge reading the patent filing.... thus if you filed it, you would have to disclose how it works. Do you even know what a patent is?

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

They do this because they are required to make sure that you can't use their device for widespread copyright infringement, to shield themselves from the MPAA.

All I can say is, you are very naive for believing this. They already take plenty of heat for allowing the copying of copyright materials (the core of their business model). Do you really think they're very concerned about copyright violations from modified devices (for which they bear no legal responsibility)?

Re:lookin for a karma whore. . .

[wild_berry]

If that algorithm really is so critical to your success that you need to patent it, it's probably not something you want other people to know how to implement

What companies wanted in software patents was better legal protection than the notion of trade secrets. The patent system trades the public disclosure of an invention for a limited time monopoly to work that invention. When you're done with your patent, the public get to implement your invention because you've told them how in the patent itself. Most countries worldwide -- and particularly United States -- will not grant a monopoly when the patent doesn't tell the reader how to work the invention. So you're legally bound to tell people in your patent how to implement your algorithm. What is gained is patent infringement litigation, at the expense of the disclosure.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[cromar]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, theorize. It's surprising, but not in the way you imply.

Old news AND irrelevant...

[nweaver]

a: This is very old news, from back in October, just rehashed to get more clicks.

b: It is irrelevant. Even if Linus loved the GPLv3, there is so much code contributed to the Linux kernel without a transfer of copyright and under GPLv2 only terms that it couldn't be changed anyway.

Re:Old news AND irrelevant...

[kebes]

It's true that relicensing the entire kernel to GPLv3 would be impossible. But it could transition to GPLv3 in a "ship of Theseus" manner if all new code contributions were licensed as GPLv3 (or dual licensed v2/v3). As older code becomes replaced with newer code, a larger and larger fraction of the code-base would be covered by v3. In principle eventually the kernel would be completely available under GPLv3. (Does anyone know the average lifetime of code in the kernel? How long does it take for the entire codebase to be "refreshed"?) Alternately with sufficient migration to new code, eventually the list of "must get permissions" might be manageable.

Of course this isn't going to happen soon, since Linus, at least, will continue submitting GPLv2-only code, as will many others. What I don't know about Linus' stance is how extreme he will be. He clearly prefers v2 over v3, but will he reject code submissions that are v3? (or dual-licensed?)

Rejecting submissions based on license sound rather ideological (not typical for the self-proclaimed pragmatist that he is)... but if he allows a significant fraction of the code to be v3-compatible, then the kernel may become a de-facto GPLv3 codebase.

Re:Old news AND irrelevant...

[ZorbaTHut]

It's highly doubtful that he'd ever accept v3-only submissions since that would mean that the kernel could no longer be distributed under gplv2 *or* gplv3, but instead different parts of it would have to be distributed under different licenses. I'm not even sure that's legally possible.

I imagine he'd accept dual-licensed submissions but it's quite possible that he wouldn't bother to document the gplv3 part.

Re:Old news AND irrelevant...

[_KiTA_]

b: It is irrelevant. Even if Linus loved the GPLv3, there is so much code contributed to the Linux kernel without a transfer of copyright and under GPLv2 only terms that it couldn't be changed anyway.

I was under the impression that the GPLv2 allows anyone to pick any later version of the GPL if they so choose?

Ergo, who cares what he says about GPLv2 or GPLv3, just download it, state to yourself (loudly, proudly, standing at your cube, with a cape blowing in the wind if possible) "I declare this copy of the GPL to be VERSION THREE!" and duck the inevitable nerf darts that will be flying at your head by this point.

Re:Old news AND irrelevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that the GPLv2 allows anyone to pick any later version of the GPL if they so choose?

The Linux kernel GPLv2 licence removes the phrase 'or ... any later version'.

Re:Old news AND irrelevant...

[Chandon Seldon]

Most GPLed code is licensed under "version X or later", allowing forward compatibility between versions. The main reason some people are annoyed with the Linux guys is that they explicitly removed the "or later" bit from their licensing, making it so that Linux code can't be used with v3 code.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, RMS is an active Emacs project developer/patch-coordinator, as anyone on emacs-devel would know, acting in a similar role to Linus' linux role, sooo... who are you talking about?

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[JohnFluxx]

Yes, because Linus represents the views of all linux programmers.

Patents

[BlueParrot]

With Microsoft's patent FUD I'm guessing it is only a question of time until we get some SCO clone to file a patent lawsuit against the Linux kernel. Will be interesting to see Linus' response when that happens.

Re:Patents

[morgan_greywolf]

With Microsoft's patent FUD I'm guessing it is only a question of time until we get some SCO clone to file a patent lawsuit against the Linux kernel. Will be interesting to see Linus' response when that happens. You can't sue a kernel. It isn't a legal entity. Maybe you could sue Red Hat or Novell or Canonical or IBM or somebody like that, but you can't sue a kernel. Maybe you could even sue Linus Torvalds personally. I'm sure someone with big pockets, possibly someone with big blue pockets, would step up to defend him almost instantly, though.

That being said, yes, that's been a part of Microsoft's strategy all along. Microsoft has intimated this themselves, while simultaneously explicitly denying it. Either it or another puppet like SCO will step up and sue somebody over patent violations in Linux.

All I gotta say is this: You know that aforementioned someone with big blue pockets? Yeah, that someone happens to be the largest patent holder in the world and happens to have invested large sums of money into Linux as their primary OS strategy for the next several years. I'm guessing they still won't be playing nice.

Re:Patents

[One Louder]

The GPL3 doesn't protect against patent claims by entities that have not distributed the particular code released under that license.

Re:Patents

[itsdapead]

And even the GPL v2 says quite clearly that you can't distribute GPL2 code without passing on the full GPL rights and cites a patent license as an example of something that might prevent this.

As I understand it, the patent stuff in the GPL 3 was an attempt to prevent attempts to fudge around this with shenanigans such as:

I promise almost certainly maybe not to sue your immediate customers over any intellectual property of mine which may or may not turn up in this code but this doesn't violate GPL2 because I'm not actually going to sign a legal document saying that you need a patent license from us or tell you which patents we mean even if my colleague was spouting off at a press conference about how many of our patents it violates..."

...although trying to anticipate and block variations on that sort of FUD seems like nailing jelly to a tree to me.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please name a license that could override the law, scince that is obviously what you think GPLv3 can do....

Pragmatism/idealism

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people characterise Torvalds as being pragmatic as opposed to Stallman's idealism, but Stallman is pragmatic too, he just looks further ahead than Torvalds. This short-sightedness doesn't pay off. Stallman warned about the BitKeeper problem, but Torvalds didn't do anything about it until the situation blew up in his face. The FSF started requiring a paper trail for GNU contributions, Torvalds didn't follow their lead until SCO started suing.

I'm not a fan of GPLv3, but I can't understand why people consistently deride Stallman and worship Torvalds. Stallman is consistently proven right.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[Anonymous Coward]

When Linux was released, it went from being a necessary component of GNU to a nice-to-have experiment. Why do you think HURD is relevant?

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[sumdumass]

I'm not a fan of GPLv3, but I can't understand why people consistently deride Stallman and worship Torvalds. Stallman is consistently proven right.

I don't think they deride Stallman to side with Linus at all. I think it is more of a situation where they don't see Stallman as being sane and already reside were Linus.

I remember some time long ago where I took a stand to find that others supported the same as me too. Now the question might be did we come to this conclusion all by ourselves? Did people take my stand and adopt it as their own then present it as their own? Or did we just unify around people who had similar opinions. I think it was more of the last then any of the formers.

And to this not, I think the siding with Linus is because he makes so much sense compared to Stallman. If you aren't already a subscriber to the Church of Stallman, he is a little hard to swallow.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[Kilz]

Using GNU/HURD much lately? As a matter of fact , all most everyone using Linux uses part of it. The HURD kernel was the last part to be completed. Without the GNU/HURD project the rest of the software that the Linux kernel interacts with (everything but the Linux kernel) would not have existed at the time it was needed.
Stallman saw the need for a free operating system. Its just the project chose a difficult to perfect design for its kernel.
But he has shown an uncanny ability to see what is needed way before others. Granted for other reasons the Linux kernel will most likely not move to gplv3. But I cant help but feel that it is going to come back to haunt the Linux kernel in the long run.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[Bruce Perens]

Richard sat down sometime in the early 1980's and forecast the world we'd have today and its problems. This was an astounding feat. Big companies try to find CEOs who can do that and pay them Millions. We have one who works for free. A lot of us won't listen to him, but that's often because he is too far ahead of us for us to understand.

Richard has his failings too. But if you watch him over a period of years, it becomes clear that he's right over and over again.

Bruce

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[s20451]

I disagree, I think Stallman did the right thing for the wrong reasons when he wrote GPLv2, which I still think is a remarkable and beautiful contribution. I think the lesson of Linux is that GPLv2 is an excellent way for both individuals and large corporations to cooperate on mutually beneficial software (such as an operating system) without worrying that their partners are going to steal their ideas without giving anything back in return.

History is going to judge GPLv3 harshly for (a) hewing very closely to ideology rather than practicality, pretty much guaranteeing that it will not be adopted in commercial applications; and (b) splitting the free software community by releasing a non-backward-compatible license, and then aggressively pushing it with a "with-us-or-against-freedom" pitch. Whether Stallman minds that or not is his own issue.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[sumdumass]

I don't doubt that he is right the majority of the time. I just think the support Linus gets isn't an act against Stallman but rather a practical position of mutual benefit when we don't understand Stallman. It isn't a matter or people worshiping Linus or attempting to refute Richard as much as coming to the same conclusions and Linus agreeing with them. When Linus speaks about these ideals and situations, it only appears that we are supporting him because he is telling the majority of us something we already agree with.

In other words, Linus's support or worship as the GP put it, is more of an effect of Linus supporting the rest of us. When like minds think alike, it can appear to be a concerted effort or it could be that people thought of the same things. Linus seems to have a good read on what a lot of people already think and his position seem to be a lot closer then others.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is more of a situation where they don't see Stallman as being sane and already reside were Linus.

Yes, and I'm asking why they don't see Stallman as sane when he's consistently proven right.

the siding with Linus is because he makes so much sense compared to Stallman.

Yes, and I'm asking why people think Torvalds makes sense when every time he disagrees with Stallman it turns out to be a mistake.

If you aren't already a subscriber to the Church of Stallman, he is a little hard to swallow.

But why, when time consistently proves him right?

You don't have to be "a subscriber to the Church of Stallman", you just have to look at the historical trend.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[sumdumass]

If you have to ask then your probably wondering why the political systems in most countries are screwed.

You see, you, or anyone for that matter, are only right when you are right. When you have outstanding predictions, it doesn't mean that you are right or wrong, it means that w haven't found out yet.

Human nature it to interpret things with your own experiences. Not from the ramblings of someone that has a good track record. the people who subscribe to "the church of Stallman", which is only a play on your "worship Linus" bit, end up seeing and interpreting things through their own eyes and experiences. This leads to Stallman being ignored and when someone else comes to the same conclusions, they simple lump together.

And down the road when Stallman is proved right, we take that experience and ad it to all the others and start again.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[Anonymous Coward]

I just think the support Linus gets isn't an act against Stallman but rather a practical position

Yes, but you have to remember that every time Stallman has been right in the past, back then he was been criticised by people who told him to be "practical" as well. He's always up against "practical" people. You are missing the fact that just because something makes sense in the immediate short-term, that doesn't mean it's particularly practical. Stallman is practical, the only difference is he thinks about what will be practical tomorrow, not just what works today.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick is to have the right amount of foresight (or the right amount of "fore" in the "sight"). Being right too early often isn't that helpful or useful.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[dbIII]

but Stallman is pragmatic too

Not on this issue. Find out about his policy on passwords for instance. Completely open computer systems are often a bad idea in commercial environments so I prefer to have password protected logins. The completely open vs various shades of protection (ie. making it harder for some script kiddie the flash the firmware of your router from the net) debate was where we went from the unworkable RMS view for the intial drafts of GPLv3 to the more sensible state of that licence now after others have thought about it. RMS is definitely not taking a pragmatic approach here but he is not the only one involved in drafting GPLv3. As initially drafted the licence would have hurt embedded developers as collatoral damage in some crusade against Tivo.

We shouldn't worship either of them but instead consider their points on different things on their merits. RMS is a bit of a prickly character that likes to create stunts to make points which is why he gets derided. Going right from "linux, never heard of it! Haha" in about three years of interviews to the attempted renaming of linux to advertise gnu (noble ends, but ...) annoyed me and most likely a few others here. Adopting the stupid definition of operating system that MS created to try to win a court case just so he could use it to make political points annoyed me a bit too, but he's always been one for the increasingly common habit of redefining words with new meanings.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter how rigth he has been. If he cannot translate that to the people, they will continue to think he is a nutcase in the present.

When you look at the practicality of it, if he cannot translate his idea in a way that convinces people, then they just don't side with them. And my entire point isn't whether he has been right or not, it is that when people don't connect, they rely on their own experiences and draw whatever conclusions they will. This doesn't mean they are following Linus but suggests that Linus might be coming to the same conclusions and people are associated by default.

I'm sure Linus and Stallman have a decent track record within their own respect and rights. But I think it isn't a matter of shunning and following as much as a matter of convenience and the inability to capture the audience when communicating. In other words, because each is who they are, right or wrong, it isn't either of them getting worshipers or rejections. It is more a matter of chance then a strong following when it is observed that people follow Linus instead of Stallman. They wouldn't likely follow anyone but end up with the same positions as Linus presents on their own so they get lumped in with him.

Re:Pragmatism/idealism

[Anonymous Coward]

Find out about his policy on passwords for instance.

I heard about his no-password police from decades ago, but I don't believe he still thinks that way. Do you have any reason to believe he kept this policy to the present day? Why can't I ssh into fsf.org with the rms username and get a shell without a password?

we went from the unworkable RMS view for the intial drafts of GPLv3 to the more sensible state of that licence now after others have thought about it.

You mean he did the entirely pragmatic thing of soliciting feedback from others and actually incorporating it into the final license? How outrageously stubborn and unrealistic of him!

the attempted renaming of linux to advertise gnu

Okay, I wasn't sure until this point, but now I know you have an axe to grind. Nobody attempted to rename Linux as GNU, and Stallman even corrects you if you refer to Linux as GNU. The only place that meme has ever taken hold is in the depths of -1 Slashdot Troll Land.

No choice in the matter

[Random BedHead Ed]

Statements like these are not new. Linus has been avoiding GPL 3 for a while now, even though he says he likes the final license better than some of the early drafts. It's really all to obscure the fact that he can't change the license even if he wanted to. He would have to control the copyrights for all contributed code in order to switch from GPL 2 to any other license, including GPL 3. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your option of the new revision) he does not have the power to do this.

Re:No choice in the matter

[bmartin]

They really should look into this issue. Switching to a license is one thing; being bound to a license is another.

It'd be nice to having mandatory submission under specific terms that allowed a voting body to decide on the license the code would be released under, so that if at some point the majority of the contributors wanted to migrate to v3, they could migrate all of the code instead of only their own portions. Unfortunately, establishing something like that would require all submitters of code to approve, and surely that'd be a big investment and probably impossible.

The GPLv2 is a very fitting license for Linus' intentions, but who's to say that something more fitting won't be drafted in the future? This is a small cause for concern.

Makes sense

[marcello_dl]

Even if I think GPL3 is the way to go if you care for people not to partially "hijack" your project, for a kernel it seems sensible to use v2. What about a networked box using a gpl3 TCP/IP stack? Wouldn't the use of the box define if it's legal or not? Too much of a hassle.

  I'd go for v2 or any later with the caveat that if you want to merge into official kernel it must be v2.

Anyway I'm likely missing all the problems with patents which could suggest going GPL3.

Re:Makes sense

[novakyu]

I'd go for v2 or any later with the caveat that if you want to merge into official kernel it must be v2. Except, of course, "going for v2 or any later" is essentially staying v2. When you give the recipients the choice of two versions, corporations like TiVo, for whom v3 was partially designed, will just choose v2. "Going for v2 or any later" is essentially the weasel response which, 1) hurts adoption of v3; 2) doesn't put you firmly in v2 camp where you would have to defend your position.

Perhaps the only thing even changing the official Linux to "v2 or later" would do is, it will open up possibilities for v3-only forks. But as long as there is a well-maintained version of Linux under GPL v2 out there, such forks serve absolutely no purpose, other than to fragment the free software community.

Do you understand free software?

[l2718]

If I were RMS, I would forbid the packaging of any GNU code with a GPLv2 GNU/Linux. Not only would this against RMS's free software philosophy, but the GPL (yes, even version 3!) expressly disclaims any limitation on the mere packaging of software. More to the point, this is much ado about nothing. Even if Mr. Torvalds "saw the light" and decided he wanted to move to GPL v3, this would be impossible in practical terms since Linux has no copyright escrow agent similar to the FSF for GNU. In other words, to move code licensed to Linux under GPL v2 (only) to GPL v3 requires re-licensing by the original author -- which you may never be able to find. So, you may safely assume that Linux will be GPL v2 until it is re-written from scratch.

Re:Do you understand free software?

[cromar]

Why would RMS want to create even more tension between the two groups??!

Re:Do you understand free software?

[sigzero]

"So, you may safely assume that Linux will be GPL v2 until it is re-written from scratch."

I can safely say that will never happen.

Re:Do you understand free software?

[einhverfr]

Could happen.

Remember Thomas Bushnell? For all the ideas that free software == free speech, Thomas Bushnell was required by Stallman to *resign* from the position of being primary HURD architect (and the project has certainly not recovered from that). Why was he asked to resign? Because he (publically) argued that the GNU Free Documentation License was not free enough to be universally consistant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines.

Re:Do you understand free software?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree. In reality it couldn't happen. It wouldn't be Linux. It would be something like HURD that nobody really cares about and that isn't going to change. Nobody is going to re-write it from scratch period.

Re:Do you understand free software?

[einhverfr]

I suppose you are right-- RMS wants people to use his software. If he releases a GPL v3.1 which removes the system libraries exception, then all of GNU becomes tied to HURD's release, sorta like Duke Nukem Forever* ;-)

*I have a long-running joke that Duke Nukem Forever has been repeatedly delayed due to the lack of a suitable HURD release to play it on....

Not good enough anymore?

[Rydia]

Wait, so GPL 2 is "locking code up?" Where were all these people who had strong anti-GPL 2 sentiments before 3 was released? Was it not good enough then, or are we just angry because the FSF is telling us to be?

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[kebes]

Wait, so GPL 2 is "locking code up?" It's not that the GPLv2 is a bad license--it is a great license. The question is whether the GPLv3 is better (and if so, then why not use it?).

Where were all these people who had strong anti-GPL 2 sentiments before 3 was released? They were discussing the shortcomings of v2 prior to v3 being created (in fact, it was because of those discussions that v3 was born). One can be pro-GPLv2 but still think of ways to improve it, by the way. The complaints used examples like TiVo (extending code, but preventing end-users from exercising freedom to tinker), web-services (making derivative code, but not releasing changes since users didn't directly download copies of code), patent deals (breaking the spirit of the GPL by using out-of-band patent deals to prevent others from using derivative code), and so on.

Now, regardless of whether or not you agree with these particular points (I agree with some, not others), the fact is that the GPLv2 was good, but had identified weaknesses in the eyes of some people. The GPLv3 was thus created as an alternative for those who felt that GPLv2 didn't emphasize certain points strongly enough. It should also be noted that v3 cleans up some language in order to make it more modern and in light of experience in dealing with GPL licensing issues.

Was it not good enough then, or are we just angry because the FSF is telling us to be? Your question is a red herring: GPLv2 is good, but GPLv3 may be better (for some people/uses).

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Are you bothered because you weren't paying attention and didn't notice a number of people locking Linux into devices and not allowing free open access? Personally I'm still pretty pissed about the whole SVEAsoft thing.

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[A beautiful mind]

What GPLv2 does in spirit, GPLv3 does in spirit, but also in a court.

The Tivo example is not about the availability of source code, because that is a must, but about the ability to be able to change the source code. Tivo violated the spirit of GPLv2 when they created their device in such a way that it can only run their signed versions (and their users can't have the key). The problem is that this aspect of the license is not really enforceable in a court, so thus GPLv3 was created. It just spells out specifically that the Tivo case is prohibited with GPL licensed code, because it blocks your freedom to modify code.

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[amliebsch]

It doesn't block your freedom to modify the code at all. Load it up and modify it. Compile it. Run it. You are free to do all of that because of GPLv2. The only thing you CAN'T do is run it on a specific piece of hardware.

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[muuh-gnu]

> The only thing you CAN'T do is run it on a specific piece of hardware.

You cant do it on probably the only piece of hardware it runs on. Whats the point of a piece of software, if you cant run it on the hardware it is intended to run on? What if not only TiVo did this, but, well, _every single_ PC manufacturer out there? You would have free software everywhere, but couldnt run it anywhere. Well, you could run it, but only in the way the manufacturer intended to. What kind of "freedom" would that be? Isnt exactly that what MS does with it's "shared source"?

You seem to forget how the GPL evolved. It started with a printer driver RMS wanted to customize but was denied the source code. What would have helped him, if the manufacturer gave him the source code, when he, if tivoisation were common back then, wouldnt be able to run his customization to do his work? Appart to being able to study it, the code would be pretty much useless for what its primarily intended to. The freedom to "change and run" was one of the basic four GPL freedoms from the very beginnings, and is the same in relation to "run", as is "change and distribute" in relation to "distribute".

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit loads of people have had strong anti-GPL 2 sentiments since before /. began ... but on *these* forums they tend to get modded to -1 by the rabid pro-FSF crowd that predominates here.

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[ray-auch]

> > The only thing you CAN'T do is run it on a specific piece of hardware.

> You cant do it on probably the only piece of hardware it runs on. Whats the point of a piece of software, if you cant run it on the hardware it is intended to run on?

It has many uses (that I can think of).

Suppose I ship a device containing software in ROM. You can't run modified software on that device, so what happens if that software is GPLed (2 or 3) ?

Is it:

a) I can't ship GPL software in ROM (at all)
b) I don't have to ship you the source, because after all there would be "no point" in you having it
or
c) I still have to ship the source

If it is (c) then, by your argument, the GPL is pointless ?

> It started with a printer driver RMS wanted to customize but was denied the source code. [...] the code would be pretty much useless

Years ago I also had a problem with a printer driver - postcript interpreter, in ROM. Source code for that interpreter would have been very useful in diagnosing and fixing the problem. Even though I couldn't change the ROM.

If you can't see the use, then you aren't thinking hard enough.

> The freedom to "change and run" was one of the basic four GPL freedoms from the very beginnings, and is the same in relation to "run", as is "change and distribute" in relation to "distribute".

The publication history doesn't match this contention. The statement of freedoms postdates the first versions of the GPL, and the earliest statement of those freedoms contain only three, not four. Guess which one was added later ?

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

the rabid pro-FSF crowd that predominates here

LMAO. You've obviously never read a Slashdot discussion of GPL-3 before.

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt exactly that what MS does with it's "shared source"?

I think you mean MS/Intel/AMD/loads of others with their Treacherous Computing.

Re:Not good enough anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose I ship a device containing software in ROM. You can't run modified software on that device, so what happens if that software is GPLed (2 or 3) ?

Another loophole in the GPLs. Way forward for GPLv4, hopefully compatible with v3. The way I read from FSF's Free BIOS campaign, they consider ROMs as hardware:

The BIOS was impossible to replace because it was stored in ROM: the only way to to put in a different BIOS was by replacing part of the hardware. In effect, the BIOS was itself hardware--and therefore didn't really count as software. It was like the program that (we can suppose) exists in the computer that (we can suppose) runs your watch or your microwave oven: since you can't install software on it, it may as well be circuits, not a computer at all.

Not a computer at all

b) I don't have to ship you the source, because after all there would be "no point" in you having it or c) I still have to ship the source

Not very pointless, users can use your modifications for their other software, e.g. an emulator, or driving a similar device. The only missing thing is guarantee that the same software is in the ROM. Also, the license says so-and-so, the licensee does so-and-so. Tinkering-minded people would just find out the ROM workaround and drop the device in a trashbin, and post to their Tube. Wallets still can vote.

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[morgan_greywolf]

Who has gotten to Linus? Why does he no longer love free software or RMS?

So now, suddenly, since there is a new version of the GPL, anyone who stays on the old version hates software freedom?

Wow. That's kind of an extreme way to look at it. Especially since RMS himself said that there's nothing wrong with continuing to use GPL V2, if that's what a project wants to do.

If I were RMS, I would forbid the packaging of any GNU code with a GPLv2 GNU/Linux. Without altering the language of the GPL, simply put, he can't.

As in, the TiVo..

[fjhb]

As in, the TiVo vendor is actually producing something by themselves?

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[Y-Crate]

Yes, because Linus represents the views of all linux programmers. Last time I checked GPL3 was a total non-starter.

Do you understand how free software works?

[l2718]

If I were RMS, I would forbid the packaging of any GNU code with a GPLv2 GNU/Linux.

Not only would this against RMS's free software philosophy, but the GPL (yes, even version 3!) expressly disclaims any limitation on the mere aggregation of software.

More to the point, this is much ado about nothing. Even if Mr. Torvalds "saw the light" and decided he wanted to move to GPL v3, this would be impossible in practical terms since Linux has no copyright escrow agent similar to the FSF for GNU. In other words, to move code licensed to Linux under GPL v2 (only) to GPL v3 requires re-licensing by the original author -- which you may never be able to find. So, you may safely assume that Linux will be GPL v2 until it is re-written from scratch.

Re:Do you understand how free software works?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Exactly.

He added he cannot change the licence on his own anymore. "I mean, because I have accepted code over the last 15 years by people who kind of accepted my original choice of the GPL Version 2, I'm not just, I think, ethically bound by those people's choices, I am also actually legally bound," Torvalds said.

I think this is a case of "sour grapes". Due to a bad decision, he is locked into a single license now. It will only get worse. Eventually there will be a GPL4.

Re:Do you understand how free software works?

[mr_mischief]

I'm not so sure it's sour grapes. I think Linus really likes the GPLv2 more than GPLv3. I think he's glad he can't track down all the authors of all the patches for permission to change it, because it takes some of the heat from GPLv3 zealots off of him.

Re:Do you understand how free software works?

[mrbooze]

Also, hasn't Linus expressly maintained that he has no problem with what Tivo does? I'd swear I remember reading something about his objections to the whole Anti-Tivo portions of the GPL3.

Re:Do you understand how free software works?

[mr_mischief]

I think he said that he personally has no problem with what Tivo does. I don't think he has a problem with a license not allowing what Tivo does, as long as he's free to not move to that license. So yeah, it could be that one of his reasons for not wanting to move to the GPLv3 is that he supports what Tivo's doing.

Personally, I think having different licenses for different camps with different views is great. I just don't think the GPLv3 is what many developers licensing code under GPLv2 consider to be an improved GPLv2. I think it strikes a lot of people as trying to go too far or go in a different direction. I'm not opposed to the GPLv3 for people who want to use it. I'll probably contribute code to projects that use it. I probably won't use it for any of my own projects (not that I'll change any lives in that decision, because none of my projects ever get spread around much). If people asked Linus about it in those terms rather than being so confrontational about things, he might say the same.

Political decision

[Pipaman]

Torvalds' decision is only political and would not change the scenary unless other actors follow the same way.

Torvalds throws weight around

[ifknot]

Just in case you forgot who wrote the monolith. "I ... I want to do... I think we(sic) want to do much, much better than Version 3" All These Worlds Are Yours Except Europa

changing the license

[orra]

Even if Linus loved the GPLv3, there is so much code contributed to the Linux kernel without a transfer of copyright and under GPLv2 only terms that it couldn't be changed anyway

A long time ago, Linus changed the license of Linux from a non-free license to the GPL. Did he ask everybody for an explicit grant of license under the GPL? No; he announced his intention to change the license, and asked that anybody with "grievances" mail him.

Maybe all he needs to do to upgrade the version of the GPL used is to ask the few major corporate contributors for permission, and tell everybody else to mail only if they have a problem.

Re:changing the license

[sumdumass]

The code that was in there is pretty much all gone now. But that was another time in computing when copyright didn't mean exactly what it does now. The penalties were different and the ideas behind it were different.

You cannot take something licenses under a type or license that get's all of it's power from copyright law and attempt to usurp that copyright law in an effort to change the license to another version of a license that acts in the same way. Well you can but you wouldn't expect to be able to defend the new license when all the code in it is there because of fraud. GPLv2 only means that in the context of the code submitted.

Another question might be why would he want to risk changing the license? He already said that while he doesn't agree with the likes of Tivo he doesn't want to deny them the ability to do what they are doing. He already said that patents are covered by the existing GPLv2 license and the extra language in the GPLv3 isn't needed. He already said that while he doesn't agree with Novell's pact with Microsoft, he doesn't think it is wrong. I mean why would he want to change to the GPLv3? You have to ask yourself if you are thinking like he does? Or are you comming from a different approach all together?

Re:changing the license

[s20451]

That message was written at kernel version 0.12, when the number of developers was small and few people had even heard of Linux.

It is now a serious, production operating system that has received significant support and input from several of the largest tech companies in the world.

Are you seriously suggesting that Linus could simply write a short message saying, "I'm gonna change the license to GPLv3, kthxbye", without kicking off a shitstorm of controversy, and possibly exposing himself to litigation? Especially given the passionate disagreement over the issue, even among members of the community who do not have financial stake in the licensing question.

It depends if its an advantage...

[Midnight Thunder]

Before everyone starts arguing about the merits of GPLv3, let's remember that it's just the license for the kernel. It's not going to be changing much when used in proprietary consumer devices. On the other hand, if it's not going to change it much, why lock it up? Kinda a moot point...

The real question, is how would a move to GPLv3 benefit Linux? If the answer is not at all, then by keeping it a GPLv2 helps make everyone's life simpler. Any change in license would in certain cases mean that Linux would have to revetted by legal departments in a number of companies and for TiVO-like products a real pain in the neck.

In many ways GPLv3 is a reaction to DRM, but getting all religious about things is not going to be the solution either, IMHO.

Re:It depends if its an advantage...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The real question, is how would a move to GPLv3 benefit Linux? No, the real question is, "how would a move to GPLv3 benefit Linux users?"
The GPL, regardless of version, has always been about the end user, not the developer or any of the intermediaries.

In many ways GPLv3 is a reaction to DRM, but getting all religious about things is not going to be the solution either, IMHO The GPL has always been 'religious' about the end user's freedoms. You could just as easily say that DRM is a reaction to people's natural expectations of freedom.

The GPL's philosophy can be summarized in one sentence: Guarantee that the end user has full ability to tinker with the product. The GPLv3 simply plugs a few loopholes that have come to light since the GPLv2 was written. It does not extend the original philosophy one iota.

Re:It depends if its an advantage...

[shentino]

Considering that Linus Torvalds is not, in fact, the sole copyright holder to Linux, I'm not even sure that Linux CAN switch to v3 anyway.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[gad_zuki!]

Exactly. Linus lives in the real world. Hell, the OLPC cant go gplv3 because it uses "tivoization" as part of its security model. You have to apply to get the key to unlock the bios.

gplv3 is going to look like a market failure but a ideological win.

Correct, and deliberately...

[nweaver]

The Linux Kernel GPLv2 deliberately leaves off the "or later", because that gives control of your liscence to some other entity (the FSF).

Re:Correct, and deliberately...

[SargentDU]

reminds me of the software the kid tried to install on his Linux box, it said "works with windows 3.1 or better" so the kid was disappointed when it would no work for him. :)

L. Ron Torvalds vs. the Stallmanistas

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, it... is... ON!!!

L. Ron Torvalds has just declared all out war on Richard Stallman and his radical attempts to conquer all software via the GPLv3.

These two guys are, like, the Gods of FOSS. Who will win this epic, climactic struggle? The FOSS world is obviously not big enough for the two of them... so who will win? Will this Clash of the Titans bring down all the hopes and dreams of the FOSS world? Will pasty white nerds be furiously waging war from their keyboards? Which side will be the first to hire the veteran "warblogger" mercenaries away from the GOP?

I don't have any answers, but I've got a ton of popcorn and a strong desire to watch the inevitable sissy-fight!

Let's get ready to RUMBLE!!!!!

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[tji]

> Well, RMS is an active Emacs project developer/patch-coordinator, as anyone on emacs-devel would know, acting in a similar role to Linus' linux role, sooo... who are you talking about?

I think he's talking about the hordes of commenters in places like Slashdot, who have jumped on the bandwagon and have come to the conclusion that GPL2 is not "open" enough. It strikes me as a bit silly when all these kids, who have never contributed a single line of code, criticize the creators of software on their openness for only going as far as GPLv2.

Smoking some shit, aren't we?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF aren't DELETING the GPL2 license. It is still available. If, however, the GPLv2 doesn't protect your code like you wish it to, you can use GPLv3.

This is a HUGE non-story. It is like hearing "Bill Gates approves of the new Windows Vista". Duh.

As Tonto would say...

[SuperBanana]

"I want to pick the licence that makes the most sense for what I want to do. And at this point in time, Version 2 matches what I think we want to do much, much better than Version 3,"

"I", or "we", Linus?

In the words of the great Tonto, "What do you mean WE, white man?"

Linux creator Linus Torvalds has used an interview being made public by the Linux Foundation

Superbanana has used a posting being made by Slashdot to complain about the lack of editorial skills on the Slashdot staff...yeesh.

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[MightyMartian]

Welcome to the license wars, where both sides are populated by fanatical idiots. Stallman, in particular, gets on my nerves because he's become nothing more than pontificating mushroom. At least Torvalds remains a productive member of society, even if he's a bit of troll in his own right.

The nice thing about lots of licenses is that you, as the developer or development team, can pick the one that you feel best serves your project's interests. It seems to me the license wars are the very dichotomy of the idea of an open license, because they're all about trying to force developers down a specific path.

Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Would you please stop propogating that misinformation? Linus could change the license in one month, if he wanted to. It doesn't matter how many copyright holders are absent or dead. All he has to do is publish in a legal notice his intent and a clear means for any copyright holder in opposition to request removal of their work.

A license change (alteration of the terms of the GFDL) was recently done for Wikipedia which is a much bigger problem than the kernel due to the fact that it has tens of thousands of times as many copyright holders. FSF cooperated. It proceeded very quietly.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Rogerborg]

All he has to do is publish in a legal notice his intent and a clear means for any copyright holder in opposition to request removal of their work.

That's a super idea! Hey, Sony BMG, I'm going to rip off all your Britney Spears back catalogue unless you tell me not to. Bruce said it would be OK. Yeah, Bruce Perens. What do you have to say to that, Sony?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[sumdumass]

Exactly how legal would that be? I certainly could take a RIAA song, advertise that I am changing the copyright notice and license to a creative commons license and state if you don't object in 2 months it will be final. I mean I couldn't do that could I? The copyright belongs to the people that the government claims owns it. This is either the original author, the company he works for or someone else that was assigned the copyright. You or I can't just make up our own rules and change aspects of it.

I know, there are a lot of people thinking, well, they have done it before and Music isn't the same as software copyright and software licenses. So lets change out the RIAA music to MS word and lets take the license into consideration.

Do you, or anyone else, think it is proper to usurp a license that proclaims to get all it's power from copyright and at the same time, usurp copyright law is a viable way to get another license that proclaims all it's strength is derived from copyright law too? Is this really a goos idea to start the protection of something off by basically swindling the authors and legitimate copyright holders? How well would you expect the second license to hold up in court when someone violates something directly related to the GPLv3?

And If it is ok for us to do this with GPLv2 licensed software where the ability to automatically upgrade the license has been removed, the what is to stop the BSD folks from doing the same with GPLed software? Well lets put this more clearly, what is to stop the project leaders of any GPLed program from doing the same and switching it to a BSD license against the wished of the authors who haven't kept up with the project?

Copyrighted software isn't in the public domain. You cannot usurp the validity of the copyright or the copyright holders wishes because you think it might fit your world view better. I am particularly surprised to hear this type of nonsense from you, a reported lawyer. I am just glad I am not one of your clients.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Tee hee. Sony says don't, silly. Sony is not engaged in community development with you and has not submitted to a collective work you manage.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Random BedHead Ed]

I stand corrected, Bruce - I was unaware this was a legally viable option. But for how long a period would holders of copyrights covered by the GPL 2 be allowed to respond? Would they be allowed to make these requests until the code falls into public domain? (If that's the case the kernel developers could be responding to requests to remove and replace copyrighted code for decades.) It also seems like a truly disgruntled holder of GPL 2 code that found its way into the kernel and was redistributed under GPL 3 could find that code reused in other GPL 3 projects erroneously. I realize this is increasingly hypothetical, but I'm curious about the practicality and consequences of such a change.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

The difference is that Linus manages a collaborative community to which the copyright holders have submitted their work. He has made license changes before through just this process. One was to put a prelude on the GPL explaining the system call exception, and another was to remove the GPL upgrade path.

Could a BSD developer do this to GPL software? No for two reasons. One, because the GPL software was not a contribution to his project. And two, because that changes the entire intent of the license, where a modification of GPL2 to GPL3 would not.

I am not an attorney, I just work with them a lot because I do corporate Open Source strategy for many big companies. I've discussed this particular question with multiple attorneys.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

But for how long a period would holders of copyrights covered by the GPL 2 be allowed to respond? Would they be allowed to make these requests until the code falls into public domain?

Legally, a reasonable time period like 90 days should work, a month at the shortest. Linus has done this before (when he added a prelude to the GPL, and when he removed the GPL upgrade provision) and I think didn't even wait a month for opposition. But I think it would be best to honor removal requests forever, because whether or not you have to, fixing the code is easier than arguing about it in court. Obviously, you can't remove distributed instances, you can only remove it from the main source tree.

Code ages, and loses value as it does, especially in an active work like the kernel. You don't want code of folks who don't want to work with you any longer. And remember how long it took Linus to replace Bitkeeper? One month.

Now, everybody is responding with can I give legal notice to the RIAA? Of course not. RIAA did not contribute their work to your collaborative project. It is the fact that the overall work has multiple copyright holders that makes changing the license without the active participation of 100% of them possible.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[sumdumass]

I am not an attorney, I just work with them a lot because I do corporate Open Source strategy for many big companies. I've discussed this particular question with multiple attorneys.

I sorry I wrongly called you an attorney. Somehow I thought you were, probably because of your associations with them.

I also understand that it had been done before. From my understanding though, the system calls thing isn't a change in the license rather a clarification on the interpretation of the GPL and the GPL only change was just to correct something that had always been true but changed somehow. Changing to the GPL license in and of itself was probably the biggest move but I'm sure that most if not all that early code and the obligations to it are out of the current Linux kernel.

However, I think you are getting bum advice from these attorneys you spoke with. For one, copyright is just that, you cannot expect a legal holding over something you bamboozled under your control. This is probably why the FSF hasn't forked the Linux kernel and attempted to change it on it's own merits using the same ways and justifications. It simply isn't going to work and all it would take is pointing out how the GPLv3's differences shouldn't apply because they never got permission to change the license in the first place. If the two licenses weren't incomputable with themselves which is very similar to the differences you pointed to between the GPL and BSD, then it might be a different story. But no further restrictions means simply that, no further restriction.

Could a BSD developer do this to GPL software? No for two reasons. One, because the GPL software was not a contribution to his project. And two, because that changes the entire intent of the license, where a modification of GPL2 to GPL3 would not.

Well, lets take it the other way, could Linus do the same thing to change the Linux kernel from a GPL license to a BSD license. Being a similar license and of similar scope doesn't really come into play, if he could do one, he could do the other. If you don't think he could do either, then you are thinking more sane.

I shouldn't have to pre-qualify the idea of the GPLv3 being as radically different from the GPLv2 as a BSD license would be. But I guess I should clarify it a little. The original copyright holders contributed under a set of rules that said X, Y, and Z must be present and that no further restrictions could be. While a license might have X, Y and X, if it violates the no further restrictions, it is the same as a license without X, Y, and Z. In other words, it doesn't matter who writes the license, if the new license doesn't transparently hold to the original license, then they are incompatible. A BSD license is more so compatible because it can be brought into a GPLed program but not a GPLed program into a BSD program. The GPLve, can't even go one way, it is all or nothing with it. This might be a limitation in the thinking of the license writers or it might be intentional, it doesn't really matter at this point because both licenses are incompatible in some way and moving to either without the GPLv2's authors explicit permission is illegal.

BTW, do you think it wise that we start the protection of something off by violating the very principle that gives that protection the strength it proclaims to have? I mean violating copyright concerning the GPLv2 in order to protect it under copyright with the GPLv3? Is that a good or productive idea?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

However, I think you are getting bum advice from these attorneys you spoke with. For one, copyright is just that, you cannot expect a legal holding over something you bamboozled under your control.

That's right. Anyone who objects to the change has the absolute right to tell you not to make such a change to their code. And then you take their code out.

What I contend, however, is that the majority of active copyright holders of a collective work have the right to indicate a desire to change the license and to ask the remaining copyright holders to decline or not. If the others don't respond, they can be considered to have gone along with the change. The overall work's license choice does not have to be cast in concrete.

could Linus do the same thing to change the Linux kernel from a GPL license to a BSD license.

I think he'd get too much objection immediately.

A BSD license is more so compatible because it can be brought into a GPLed program but not a GPLed program into a BSD program.

Actually, the way this works is that if you combine the two pieces, the GPL applies to the whole. It's not so much a matter of bringing one into the other, as that the result is the same no matter which side is bigger.

There is one great advantage for GPL3 in the future. People are going to start to realize from the JMRI case that the simpler licenses do not protect you from software patent lawsuits from people who derive form your code. JMRI is model railroad software, and the developer was sued by the manufacturer of a model railroad throttle who integrated the JMRI software into his commercial product and patented some function of it. A really unscrupulous character. In the case of JMRI, the Artistic license was used, but I think it would have been the same for BSD. Developers need to be protected.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Olivier Galibert]

And when at least Al Viro and Alan Cox (at least, from what I remember) ask to have their code removed from the kernel, the entire scheme will go *poof*. Linus is not the only important one against the GPL3 as it is for the kernel.

    OG.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[iggymanz]

just because wikipedia seems to have pulled off a license change without approval of all submitters doesn't mean Linus can - what happens if a contributer with deep pockets, and moreover some motive, say Novell, comes along half a year after the conversion and makes a lawsuit?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Novell would not be able to stand in the way of this for long. We know the address of their corporation agent and can serve them the notice with a real process server. If they decline, it's known that they've declined, or have failed to respond, in a short time. And from that point on, you know they aren't a team player, and can proceed appropriately.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Alan is very strongly against DRM-locking the kernel. I don't know about Al Viro.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[sumdumass]

That's right. Anyone who objects to the change has the absolute right to tell you not to make such a change to their code. And then you take their code out.

That's a little different then what we are talking about

What I contend, however, is that the majority of active copyright holders of a collective work have the right to indicate a desire to change the license and to ask the remaining copyright holders to decline or not. If the others don't respond, they can be considered to have gone along with the change. The overall work's license choice does not have to be cast in concrete.

And you would be not only wrong but stand a good chance and ruining any copyright protects you wish to push onto those people. You see, the copyright holder holds the explicit right to the copyright. He and only he holds the ability to authorize changes, copies and distribution. By assuming that his not speaking out that he would agree would defeat the entire purpose of him having that explicit control. And down the road, if I am found to be in violation of some aspect of the GPLv3 and get called on it, I can either claim that the GPLv3 doesn't apply because the author never stated his intentions other then the GPLv2 and anything built from it has to be in compliance with the GPLv2.

You are in better standing from a GPL stand point to take the people who want to change and build up from there. But trampling on someone else's copyright because you want to assume they didn't care when the law says they have explicit control is no way to treat copyright. And even if it had been done in the past, it doesn't make it correct today.

There is one great advantage for GPL3 in the future. People are going to start to realize from the JMRI case that the simpler licenses do not protect you from software patent lawsuits from people who derive form your code. JMRI is model railroad software, and the developer was sued by the manufacturer of a model railroad throttle who integrated the JMRI software into his commercial product and patented some function of it. A really unscrupulous character. In the case of JMRI, the Artistic license was used, but I think it would have been the same for BSD. Developers need to be protected.

Well, actually, the JMRI lawsuits claim is the the license didn't contain an automatic removal of rights when you weren't in compliance. The judge then suggested that there is a very strong claim in contract law and suggested that it be pursued.

Lets get this out of the way, the GPL is a license with a contract. It is highly probable that the GPLv3 would be in the same standing as the GPLv2 in regards to the JMRI case. And if a person isn't in compliance with the GPL in either case, you have to make the case that they aren't agreeing with the contract set forth and that in and of itself revoked the permission under the copyright. I have seen all the rants about the GPL being a license and not a contract. But the fact of the matter is, it is both, it is a license conditional on a contract. You have to fulfill the terms in order to have the license. Both GPLs make that very clear. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion over which GPL is better or worse then the other. Both have strengths and weaknesses and both have parts that don't do what it claims to do. But the most important part is that neither the better or worse is an excuse to violate copyright. You cannot use what you think is to your advantage in an attempt to violate the basic foundation of the license your wanting to perpetuate. It only destroys you claims on validity and weakens your future abilities to use it to protect whatever your wanting to protect.

In this life, there is right and wrong. Don't pick something that is wrong because you think it is adventitious. It does nothing but turn you into the people we despise and call criminals.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[runderwo]

That's right. Anyone who objects to the change has the absolute right to tell you not to make such a change to their code. And then you take their code out. What I contend, however, is that the majority of active copyright holders of a collective work have the right to indicate a desire to change the license and to ask the remaining copyright holders to decline or not. If the others don't respond, they can be considered to have gone along with the change. The overall work's license choice does not have to be cast in concrete.

There are many pieces of software out there with a 4-clause BSD license where the author cannot be contacted. Would I be legally correct in relicensing the work myself to 3-clause BSD, as long as I publish a public notice of intent for 90 days before doing so? Can this preemptive relicensing scheme be applied to any abandonware, like old MS-DOS programs?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[iggymanz]

ah but now you're suggesting it will take MONEY (and research) to change over. And who's to say even smaller contributor couldn't get the backing of some evil agency against Linux. If you say big players must be appeased, really the small ones should be too. Not really nice to say we can safely ignore those with shallow pockets and steamroll over them.

If it is seen that GPL3 can really deliver on its promised protections and doesn't have some hole that invalidates it (enemies will be looking for that), then a GPL3 would be a worthy goal for Linux. But I don't think so easily obtained even if Linus gets on board.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Just Some Guy]

All he has to do is publish in a legal notice his intent and a clear means for any copyright holder in opposition to request removal of their work.

Does "git" have the equivalent of svn's "blame" command? And if so, does it have a past record of changes back to the original days? If so, the conversion could be even "safer": since you know exactly who wrote every line in the kernel, keep track of which authors have given you permission to switch licenses. When every contributor to a file has signed off, switch that file.

After some time, you'd end up knowing precisely which parts would need to be rewritten or removed in order to be GPLv3-pure. If "git" supports per-file metadata, you could even store that information in the source repositories. People who wanted a pure v3 kernel could check out only that code, and Tivo-like companies could keep using v2-only code as long as it still works.

Your way is (claimed to be) riskier but easy, and my way is (probably) safer but more involved. Nonetheless, both are certainly possible, and having two distinctly different ways of handling the switch should put to rest the myth that it can't be done.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I take the entire GPL'd codebase and put it on some random server with a 90 day notice saying I'm going to change the license to BSD the FSF will cooperate and I'll be legally watertight? Somehow, I don't believe that, and if it's that easy you guys have just shot yourself down in flames. Change the world? By changing licenses like that free software has just pulled the same old corporate hijack the likes of Disney propogated.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

I don't think so. There's a difference between code actively contributed to a large collaborative project and an independent work.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

No, I'm not saying it will take either research or a significant amount of money. We know who the big players are. The minimum required for legal process service is that we find their corporation agent (easily available online), send a letter, and swear we did it.

In other words, I could do this out of my pocket if I had to.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Titoxd]

Er, close, but not quite. Wikipedia has not changed its license; it still distributes its content under version 1.2 of the GFDL, with the "or later version" clause. The recent announcement was that Wikipedia was asking the FSF to modify the GFDL, a.k.a. create a GFDL v1.3 that is more compatible with the CC licenses. The FSF said, "okay, we'll see what we can do", but AFAIK, nothing has been produced yet. Wikipedia may shift to that license easily, due to the "or later version" clause, but it cannot switch to CC-by-SA without raising several issues. That said, nobody knows if Wikipedians will even want to switch to a CC-by-SA version, so that point is rather moot.

If I understand the issue with the Linux kernel, is that it didn't have that "or later version" clause in it for some period of time, but then, I really don't know about that, and I'd gladly be corrected.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Either Linus did not have the right to remove the "and any later version" clause, in which case we can still act as if it's there, or he did have the right to remove it, in which case he can make other changes. You can't have it both ways.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not all code in the linux kernel was "contributed". Some code was brought in without the original author contributing it specifically to the linux kernel project. What's the overall picture? I suppose we don't really know, and probably won't until Linus gets his head out of the sand and decides to be an adult about managing the legal aspect of the project.

But if your theory is correct, then, the BSD projects could get rid of the advertisement clause overnight. Why haven't they done it?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[sumdumass]

You couldn't do it to any code that isn't specifically allowing you to manipulate the license.

As nice as it might be to bend the rules to get what you want, you need to take a look at the strength of the license and what holds it together. That would be copyright. And the part of copyright law that makes either license, the GPL or BSD or any other license for that matter, effective is that the copyright owner has the exclusive say over how his works are copied and distributed with the exception of fair use.

You cannot assume that someone agrees with a change because they haven't contacted you. Because they have exclusive control, the best you could assume is that they don't wish to contact you and therefore don't wish to have the license changed. Why is it the later and not the previous? Because the copyright holder has exclusive say over their works, Not you or I if they for whatever reason don't speak up.

Don't be pulled into this trap. I have seen people who think it is ok to do this or that since it is an active project they are somehow allowed to get around the copyright holders exclusive rights. This will eventually cause problems is not legally for whoever does this, but down the road when you are attempting to defend the product under the new license. Think about it, can you really jump in on an abandon project and start active development of it and then take it to another license without the express permission of the copyright holders? Of course the answer to this is no. And the only difference between doing this with an active project and a dead one is how much time your willing to put into it before making the switch.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Mana Mana]

> publish in a legal notice his intent and a clear means for any copyright holder in opposition to request removal of their work.

Bruce, I doubt you mean to imply that a copyright holder needs to *opt out*, or his work is relicensed in his silence. If so, please state explicitly.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

When you participate in a collective project and they decide to change their license, yes you may have to explicitly object to their doing so.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Titoxd]

Okay, this is way outside my area of expertise, but the wording of section 14 of the GPL (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html) makes releasing software under the "or any later version" clause appear to be an option, not a requirement.

In any case, that would be irrelevant. If somebody released his or her code under GPL v2 *only* (which appear to be the terms of copyright release that Linus asked for), then he cannot switch the copyright license of existing kernel code, because it is not his property. The original authors would need to be the ones to release it under the less-restrictive "or later". He *can* change the terms of acceptance for future code by including the "or any later version" clause, but that cannot apply retroactively to code that did not include that more-inclusive permission.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Crayon Kid]

What exactly in the copyright law and/or GPL allows for this? Re-licensing, I mean. You say it "may" work, but that's not really helping. Is it just your speculation? Is it based on solid fact? Should we start expecting that, technically, you can wake up one day to find your code that you contributed to a GPLv2 project licensed under another license?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, it is optional to use the "and any later" language. But once it is used, I consider that it is a critical portion of the license. Yet, Linus removed it without the consent of 100% of the copyright holders. Either he did not have the right to do that, and we can consider that it's still there, or he did have the right to do it, in which case he can make other changes.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Kjella]

The difference is that Linus manages a collaborative community to which the copyright holders have submitted their work. Or have their work submitted for them. You have no basis to claim, and in fact I find it very hard to believe, that no kernel developer took GPL'd code from another author which became part of a kernel patch.

He has made license changes before through just this process. One was to put a prelude on the GPL explaining the system call exception, and another was to remove the GPL upgrade path. Preludes are not a license. They may clarify one author's interpretation of the GPL, but if he changed the license itself that is a criminal copyright violation. Look it up.

As for the other, everyone has always treated them as exclusive possibilities, that can be split into "GPLv2 only" and "GPLv3+". If you choose only to accept the former, you can continue with just that one. If you want to argue otherwise, "GPLv2 only" and "GPLv2+" are incompatible because the "GPLv2 only" license does not permit everything the "GPLv2+" license does. Noone, not the FSF nor anyone else has made that kind of interpretation.

So no, as far as I can tell he has made no formal license changes. If the prelude contradicts the GPLv2, the license takes precedence. Even though you can't use it under all the license options originally offered, you can use it under no other license terms. The GPLv3 license terms would be terms never agreed to by the copyright holder. If Linus ever pulled anything like this, it would give everyone a boatload of GPL FUD that isn't even FUD in my opinion.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

I have good legal advice that the license change is entirely possible in the way I have outlined. So, with all due respect I have to reject your assertion. By the way, it is not a "criminal copyright violation", copyright is civil law, not criminal law.

Regarding the preludes, you can't really make a distinction between the text that includes "or any later version" and the rest of the license, the license is included into that that text by reference.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Titoxd]

Okay, I didn't know that part of the history. Well, the older contributions before the change should be able to be used with GPL v3 because that is the way they were originally licensed. That said, I don't think it is as problematic to remove the "later" clause to future code contributions as it is to add it, since the former is just a change in the terms of use, and the second is an expansion of the permission of the license. By removing the clause, you still are using the code within the permissions granted by the original contributor (v2, when it is acceptable to use v2 or later); while by adding the clause, you would be using the code outside the permissions granted by the license (*only* v2). In either case, the code contributed before the removal of the or later language remains under GPL v2+, so I guess you could theoretically grab an old version of the kernel, before the language was removed, and license it as GPL v3.

IANAL, though, so don't do it.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[dpastern]

Bruce - it'll never happen. Linus and Co. are the bitches for corporate interests now, and they drive what happens with the Linux kernel imho. Better to drop the Linux kernel and start moving to the GNU hurd imho.

Dave

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

It's likely you're right. Fortunately, Linux won't last forever.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[jmv]

Bruce, anyone has the right to *remove* the "or any later version" (it's "or", not "and"). Basically, the licenses says "you can redistribute under and GPL version >=2". If I choose to release as GPLv2, I'm still complying. OTOH, adding the "or any later version" is not possible unless anyone agrees. It's pretty much the same as dual-licensing. If the software says "distribute as GPL or BSD", I can keep both or strip any of them when redistributing. However, if the software says "GPL", I can't just distribute it saying "use the GPL or the BSD".

In any case, Linus *never* used the "or any later version" for Linux, it was *always* GPLv2. It's just that nobody really paid attention until there was a discussion about GPLv3.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Actually, this particular issue is one that I pursued with an attorney because it's happened to my own software. That "and any later version" material has the same status as the license. Actually the license, whichever you choose, is included into that statement by reference.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[jmv]

This is the text the FSF recommends when licensing your software under the GPL (was the same for GPLv2):

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

It's clear you can choose one of the other, hence you are free to strip any you want. In your quote, you're saying "and any later version". I'm not sure where the "and" comes from, but it's certainly not the common formulation for GPL software. Think about this: if you really couldn't strip some versions when distributing GPL software that has the "or any later version" clause, it would mean that software released as GPLv2 or later would be incompatible with software released as GPLv3 or later, which would even be incompatible with software released as GPLv3-only. In other words, "or any later version" can only be useful when you can actually drop something. Just curious, what was the piece of software that was using "and" instead of "or"?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

I went through this with both SFLC and RMS. RMS wants it to work the way you say. SFLC said it doesn't quite work that way.

The thing to consider is: what gives you the right to apply the GPL to that particular software? It is actually the text you are quoting that gives you that right. The rest of the GPL is included into that text by reference.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[jmv]

I'm not following here... So I tell you you may redistribute my software under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version", you go off and redistribute it under "v2-only" (or "v3-only"), and then I can sue you for copyright infringement (because you're in breach of my license)? If that were really the case, there would be thousands of "illegal" GPL applications, starting with anyone linking with Mozilla. Do you have any link where this is described?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[dpastern]

Yup. Sad isn't it? Linux is a corporate beast now, driven by corporate needs. Has been for probably the past 4 or 5 years. Look, I know Linus and Co. have to make money to feed their families, I understand that. But whatever happened to having a backbone? The 2.6 kernel (imho) has been nothing but advantageous to the corporate world. Sure, some of those changes have benefited the desktop (read: average user), but that's just co-incidental. When these things were developed, they weren't developed with the aim in mind of benefiting the average user. It's just a happy co-incidence.

Corporations don't like the GPL v3, because it removes the capability of them circumventing, a la Tivio the good will of the GPL v2. Tivio's alterations were never in the spirit of the the GPL v2, and if Linus can't see that, he's damn well blind. We will see an increasing abuse of GPL v2'd software. Given that smaller developers cannot afford to legally defend themselves, a lot of projects will be in big trouble I suspect.

Whilst a lot of Linux guys like Novell, I personally think that they've been vastly damaging to Linux and open source in general. We now have linspire and a host of other traitors, yes, traitors, doing deals with Microsoft that are let's just say: shady. I think Eminem was referring to Bill Gates when he wrote the Slim Shady character for some of his songs ;-) Call me paranoid, but I see behind the scenes deals between Novell and Microsoft, with the intent aim of controlling/destroying Linux if it doesn't conform to their needs/wants.

I applaud the Samba team for having a backbone, a backbone that the Linux kernel developers lack.

I would encourage Linux kernel developers to release their code under GPL v3. I personally have lost all respect for Linus over the past 3 years.

Dave

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

No, you can't be sued successfully for copyright infringement if you are in compliance with any of the licenses allowed. But none of those licenses gives you permission to remove my copyright statement, or the particular language that allows you to use one or more licenses. And even if you do remove it, the permission still exists.

You may mingle my work with additional works that do not permit use of some of those licenses, as long as there is one license that they all allow in common. But as long as a copyrighted element of mine persists in the software, you must make it available with all of the terms I specified.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[runderwo]

You couldn't do it to any code that isn't specifically allowing you to manipulate the license.

I presume you are agreeing with me that preemptive relicensing of the Linux kernel is a really bad idea.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[runderwo]

I don't think so. There's a difference between code actively contributed to a large collaborative project and an independent work.

Not in law there isn't, so I would have to assume you're just banking on the notion that a judge might buy this argument if one of the dormant copyright holders suddenly showed up to "submarine" anyone distributing the GPLv3 kernel. What commercial interest is going to want to get entangled in that possibility regarding their Linux-based product?

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

Do you use Firefox? In 2003, the Mozilla project applied the GPL as an additional license on top of the MPL/NPL. They were not able to get to all of the contributors, and settled for a majority, using a similar process to the one I've outlined. So, this has already happened, with a project that is arguably bigger than Linux and that some companies want to knock down enough that they would fund litigation if that would do it.

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[sumdumass]

Yes, I am in agreement that it is a very bad Idea.

I also think it is highly illegal and destroys the very fabric that binds the licenses to the works and the ways they attempt to protect them.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[jmv]

But none of those licenses gives you permission to remove my copyright statement

Sure, the copyright statement stays (never said it wouldn't), just like it does when (e.g.) you take BSD software and make it proprietary (but still need to keep the original license).

And even if you do remove it, the permission still exists.

You mean the permission still exists to take the original contribution and license it under any of the original licenses? Sure.

You may mingle my work with additional works that do not permit use of some of those licenses, as long as there is one license that they all allow in common.

In common or compatible, but sure.

But as long as a copyrighted element of mine persists in the software, you must make it available with all of the terms I specified.

This is the part that's not clear... Let's say you release software under "v2 or later" and I add some v3 code in it. Obviously, I can't just stick a "v2 or later" license on the result because the new bit is v3-only. So what do I do? It's obvious that anyone can still use your code as "v2 or later" and even if they extract your code from my package, they can release it under "v2 or later" because they're not using my copyrighted stuff at all. So I'm not sure what the issue is...

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

The issue is that the copyright holders have the right to make their own license designation, potentially on each and every copyrightable fragment, and have it stand. Linus has previously made unilateral changes to those designations, with notice. It doesn't matter whether he removes a designation to use "any later" as he has already done, or adds it back. It's the same kind of change. So, either he did not have the right to make the change he has already made, or he has the right to make a further change by putting back the text he removed.

Do you work on speex or just like it? I may need to contract some work on speex in order to develop something that works as well as the 1.6 K bit MELP and is open.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[jmv]

It doesn't matter whether he removes a designation to use "any later" as he has already done, or adds it back. It's the same kind of change. So, either he did not have the right to make the change he has already made, or he has the right to make a further change by putting back the text he removed.

Well, he definitely has the right to do add extra permissions (e.g. new license option) on anything he wrote (i.e. owns copyright for) or remove permissions on anything new he writes/modifies. So *effectively*, as he modifies things, he can really really remove license alternatives ("or any later version") by modifying the code, but he can't really add permissions on anything but his own code, which is useless as it's just a small part of the kernel. That being said, I'm pretty sure that Linux was *always* released as v2-only and never had the "or any later version" clause. That would make it pretty much impossible to change license unless every single contributor agreed.

Do you work on speex or just like it? I may need to contract some work on speex in order to develop something that works as well as the 1.6 K bit MELP and is open.

Yes, I'm the lead developer/maintainer.

Re:Linux license could be changed easily

[Bruce Perens]

That being said, I'm pretty sure that Linux was *always* released as v2-only and never had the "or any later version" clause.

Actually, the "any later version" text was there for at least the first 7 years of kernel development. Linus removed it.

The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

The real question is would a move to GPL3 benefit your freedom? Unfortunately, Linus doesn't give a hoot about your freedom. Here's a practical example of the importance of freedom for those who aren't willing to consider it in the abstract. I have some Sony HDTV hard disk recorders. They are going to stop getting the TV guide and will stop having the ability to set their clock when the analog TV shutdown completes at the San Francisco PBS station (which broadcasts that data in its vertical interval). These devices use Linux and indeed they come with a copyright notice for Busybox (which I created). They are also DRM locked. Sony is just going to allow the devices to become bricks, even though they were sold as HDTV, rather than analog TV, recorders. I will have to somehow crack their DRM if I want the devices to be useful after next February. GPL3 would have given me a better ability to do this work and save my device from an uncaring vendor. GPL3 is also compatible with DRM for media, as long as the DRM isn't done in the GPL3 program. So, Sony could have used it, and could have made it more possible for this device to continue to live.

Bruce

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is would a move to GPL3 benefit your freedom?

No, the real question is whether a software license should be used as a tool to effect political ends or whether it should be used to license software.

Sorry about your HDTV recorders, but that is a hardware problem and something you should consider when you purchase hardware, i.e. don't buy locked hardware from Sony if you don't want locked hardware.

Re:The real question...

[Rogerborg]

I rather think that if Busybox were GPL 3 licensed then it wouldn't have been used at all, and you'd be in an even worse position in your attempt to hack Sony's devices.

Re:The real question...

[Midnight Thunder]

Just because the box is DRMed doesn't mean that you don't have access to the source. The GPL should be provided as part of the box and a reference to the source. If Sony is smart then all the DRMed stuff would be in user space and therefore protected by an independent license. What you won't get are the keys to the DRM, unless they are in kernel space - truth if you are doing DRM properly then the keys should be on a separate chip, which is readable by the system.

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

There is nothing about the DRM provisions of GPL3 that matters where Busybox is concerned, because Busybox doesn't do the DRM.

Actually, I am working on a dual-licensed version of Busybox. It doesn't include the work of other folks, and does include a new UDEV implementation. People who don't support freedom can pay for the privilege, and I'll use that money to make more free code.

Bruce

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

I have the source. I don't get any DRM programs, so I don't really need the DRM.

Bruce

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

All copyright licensing effects a political end, which is the private ownership and control of the right to copy. All law originates in politics, and most politics originates in economics.

Re:The real question...

[droopycom]

I dont think your freedom to use the software is breached. Your freedom to use the hardware in some ways probably is.

Just dont buy that kind of hardware. I mean you probably wouldnt buy windows software right ... It sounds like what you wanted was a generic PC with linux and MythTV.

This is really just an hardware issue. If they decided to put all the code into a ROM and make it non upgradeable, then you would be sorry whether or not the code use DRM or GPLv3...

Millions of Analog TV will stop being useful when they switch off the last analog station. No matter what software would be inside those TVs, or what license was used... You could develop a converter box to generate the clock signal and the user guide your box requires from other sources.

Re:The real question...

[Timothy Brownawell]

GPL3 is also compatible with DRM for media, as long as the DRM isn't done in the GPL3 program. So, Sony could have used it, and could have made it more possible for this device to continue to live.

I wonder how the additional complexity of making only half of the firmware user-updatable would compare to the cost or complexity of using either BSD or some commercial package... If that came out the "wrong" way, your GPLv3 wouldn't really help much.

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

"These devices use Linux and indeed they come with a copyright notice for Busybox (which I created)."

Let me fix that for you, it should read:
"These devices use Linux and indeed they come with a copyright notice(which I created) for Busybox."

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

GPL3 will keep my software from being used in that sort of hardware, at least unless the manufacturer pays for the privilege. I think that's fair. It's damned annoying to be locked out of a box running my own software.

I can buy an analog TV converter box because the government is paying for me to have two of them. I can not buy a TV Guide on Screen converter box because none is available and the format is proprietary and DRM-locked.

Bruce

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is would a move to GPL3 benefit your freedom?

That really depends on how you define freedom.

As a free software developer, I want to give any (especially any other free software/open source) developer the option of (re)using my code for his/her projects. If I choose the GPLv3, then only other developers who want to push the GPLv3 can use my code legally. What about those who wish to remain using GPLv2? Or what about those who /can't/ relicense to GPLv3 for some reason? They get screwed. That's not freedom, that's tyranny under the freedom banner.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the intentions of the GPLv3 supporters (yourself included) are noble, but forcing your ideals onto other people is no better than what you proclaim to be fighting against.

Note: I've been contacted by debian maintainers for a handful of my libraries due to some application or another linking against one of my GPL libraries and another library with an incompatible license. The latest example of this was some program linking to my lib and openssl - the debian maintainer asked me if I'd be willing to provide a linking exception. My solution was to simply change my license to LGPLv2.1 (which is what the other contributors to my lib were comfortable changing it to). To avoid similar problems in the future, I'll be starting new projects using BSD (minus advert clause) or MIT X11 most likely. This whole GPL thing has just been a big headache to me and I regret ever choosing it.

The main reason I ever chose to license my code under GPL in the first place is that that's what most other projects were licensed under and being that it was the more restrictive license, it allowed me to not worry too much about looking over source code for most other projects.

As I have come to realise, though, is that having my projects licensed under GPL, it has caused problems with getting my library adopted by some other free software projects due to linking to some other lib or another with an incompatible license. This is really frustrating.

Going with the MIT X11 or BSD licenses in the future is unfortunately going to limit my ability to build on top of other libraries, but I've come to the conclusion that that is what is best for what I believe.

Bashing people for not using your preferred license is not a very "freedom lover" thing to do, it's very hypocritical if you ask me.

I know that your feeling is that the GPLv3 protects the end users (and that's fine and dandy), but it doesn't necessarily make developer's lives any better nor does it promote true freedom - freedom for anyone to do whatever they want. It only promotes freedom for end users which is but a subset of the affected people.

The way I see it, by promoting true freedom everywhere, it means that while some software vendors may take (my?) free software and use it in their proprietary products - end users can still decide to obtain their software from someone else if said vendor doesn't give them what they want (which might be that they want the source code). So everyone still wins. Proprietary software vendors win because they can still use my code. End users still win because they can demand the source code in an attempt to make the vendor change his/her mind or they can go elsewhere.

But more to the point, it means that other free software developers are able to use my code without license incompatibility frustrations.

Re:The real question...

[runderwo]

Going with the MIT X11 or BSD licenses in the future is unfortunately going to limit my ability to build on top of other libraries

How so? Hardly any license is more permissive than either of these.

But more to the point, it means that other free software developers are able to use my code without license incompatibility frustrations.

It seems that when licenses are mutually exclusive, as the GPL and 4-clause BSD are, you cannot blame either license in particular. Many other free software licenses are incompatible with both the GPL and the 4-clause BSD.

I believe blame should be placed on the person who chose the wrong tool for the job, in this case using the GPL for a library which was intended to be linked with non-GPL programs, and especially those which use licenses incompatible with the GPL. Clear permission to link with non-GPL programs is the whole reason the relaxed LGPL exists... and is even the advice of the FSF in that situation.

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're using the GPL, you're already effecting political ends! It forces licensees to submit source back to the community. How is v3 any more "political" than v2, in that case? If you don't want to force anyone to do anything that protects users' freedoms, use a BSD-like license.

Re:The real question...

[drew]

The real question is would a move to GPL3 benefit your freedom?

In that case, I guess the answer depends on who "you" are. Suppose for a second that I am Linus. (Tall assumption, I know, but bear with me...) In your example, should I be more concerned about your freedom, or Sony's? Considering where we are having this discussion, I think that most people's initial reaction would be that we should be more concerned with your freedom, maybe because they love to hate on Sony, or because they have a mistrust of corporations in general, or maybe for some other reason. But logically, who is using my code in this case? Sony is my user. So is there a reason that I should limit their freedom in order to enhance yours? I understand that what distinguishes the GPL from some of the other free licenses is that it requires my users to extend the same freedoms to their users, but Sony has lived up to that obligation, have they not? I gave them code, and in exchange, they have made it and their modifications available to their users.

The fact that they won't allow you to install any software that you want to on the hardware that they manufactured is unfortunate, but that is a separate issue. If I buy a laptop with the intention of installing Linux on it, and I find out after I buy it that the hardware is not supported, is that the manufacturer's fault or mine? Or maybe for a little bit closer analogy, what if I discovered that the factory supplied OS was installed on write-only media? I believe some smartphones are currently being sold this way, so it's not a completely unrealistic scenario. In this case, whether or not the factory supplied OS is free or not is beside the point.

In this case, I guess my question is, what if Sony hadn't used Linux on their device? What if they had decided that they didn't want to abide by the terms of the GPL, and used some proprietary system. Would you still feel that you had the right (or should have the right) to install your own software on the device?

Re:The real question...

[Miamicanes]

> They are going to stop getting the TV guide and will stop having the ability to set their clock when the analog TV
> shutdown completes at the San Francisco PBS station (which broadcasts that data in its vertical interval).

Hmmm. Sounds like a perfect project to publish in Circuit Cellar, MAKE, or Nuts & Volts... use a microcontroller to bitbang a fake NTSC video signal with the desired info encoded in the proper offscreen scanlines, run it through an RF modulator, and mux it into the cable feed with an old satellite diplexer.

IMHO, the NTSC shutdown just might kick off the biggest boom in electronics-as-a-hobby in 25 years by giving people an excuse to hack together things that do stuff just like this... stuff that can be easily done with parts bought from Digikey, but have almost no potential as mass-market consumer products.

Re:The real question...

[Bryan Ischo]

It's hard to believe that someone who is as intelligent as you appear to be and has done as much thought about the issue as you have, could have come to such a completely incorrect conclusion.

> That's not freedom, that's tyranny under the freedom banner.

This is a *complete* mischaracterization of the situation. You are using the absolute wrong terms here when you say 'freedom' and 'tyranny'. First off, freedom is such a loaded word that it's really hard to extract anything meaningful out of its use in situations like this. But 'tyranny under the freedom banner' is so clearly just *wrong*. The author of the GPLv3 is giving access to the copyrighted work under very specific terms. These terms don't take way anyone's freedom, and they don't establish any tyranny. They just give fewer freedoms than I suppose you would like them to give. I'd hardly call that 'tyranny'. To use an analogy, if I let any of the neighborhood kids play in my yard but I require that they not play baseball because I am worried that they'll break a window, am I being a tyrant? Not letting them come into my yard to fetch a ball that they accidentally hit there, would probably be tyranny. Not letting them play in my yard at all, maybe tyranny depending on your viewpoint, but I would argue not tyranny because it's my yard and really no one has a right to it except me. But letting them play in my yard and establishing a few rules that I require them to follow? How is that tyranny? And similarly, how is *giving away* the fruits of my labor, but with certain stipulations that don't affect how they use the software at all, just how they redistribute it - how can you possibly call that tyranny?

> I'm sure the intentions of the GPLv3 supporters (yourself included) are noble, but forcing your ideals
> onto other people is no better than what you proclaim to be fighting against.

I thought only people who hadn't put any thought into these issues at all used this argument. I guess not. Can you please explain how anyone is 'forcing [their] ideals onto other people' by releasing software for those other people to choose to either use or not use, depending on a) whether the software is useful to them and b) whether or not they agree to the licensing terms? Do you think that someone publishing a book is 'forcing their ideals' onto other people because those other people, if they were to choose to buy the book, would not be able to photocopy it for their friends? Forget about my pre-emptive arguments for a moment, and please just explain in what way someone who releases their code under GPLv3 is forcing anyone to do anything in any sane sense of the word 'force'?

> This whole GPL thing has just been a big headache to me and I regret ever choosing it.

Clearly you didn't read, or understand, the GPL before you chose it for your work, or maybe you just didn't think far enough ahead to realize that the problems that you had are inevitable if you use the GPL. I personally release my code under GPL *specifically* because I don't care about satisfying people who want to link my code into their application without obeying the GPL. I am not going to re-release it under the Lesser GNU Public License, because I chose the GPL *specifically* because of the freedoms that it guarantees users, and switching to the LGPL just backpedals on that in a way that makes one wonder what the point of using GPL in the first place ever was. Now I'm not saying that *you* have to use the GPL, or that the LGPL isn't the right choice for you, or that BSD, MIT, etc, licenses aren't better for you. It's your code, you should be the only person in the world who says what the best license is for your software. But I don't understand why you would talk about the GPL like *it* was the cause of some problems when in fact it was just your choosing of the *wrong* license for your intentions was the real cause.

Also the BSD without the "advert" clause is almost exactly the same thing as public domain. Why you would care th

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

This is just the "I am not maximally Free as long as I do not have the right to keep slaves" argument. Which is probably stated better as "I am not Free as long as I can not be a soverign". But maximizing freedom means maximizing it for all people. Corporations, by the way, aren't people.

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

That vertical interval signal is proprietary, and encrypted. You can see the bits if you have a USRP, but you can't make sense of them.

Re:The real question...

[SEE]

GPL3 will keep my software from being used in that sort of hardware, at least unless the manufacturer pays for the privilege. I think that's fair. As I have no ideological commitment to universal Free Software, I agree that whatever restrictions you want to put on your code are fair.

But if somebody releases code under an otherwise-Free license that specifically prohibits use on military hardware, then that is non-Free software. If somebody releases code under an otherwise-Free license that specifically prohibits use on locked-down consumer hardware, that is similarly non-Free software.

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

The DRM terms of GPL3 are not a field-of-endeavor restriction as a "no military use" term would be, because the GPL3 terms don't restrict you from having DRM. They only restrict you from making the GPL3 software itself unmodifiable in situ or impairing its functionality if it's modified. There are lots of effective ways to have DRM while making it possible to modify the kernel.

Bruce

Re:The real question...

[Miamicanes]

Wait a moment... we're not talking about some proprietary standard cobbled together by Sony and used in one or two fringe products that nobody cares about. I think we're actually talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVGOS here.

You're probably right about the encryption rendering it impossible to do as a homebrew project... but on the other hand, TVGOS is popular and widespread enough that someone (say, a company like D-Link or Logitech) will almost CERTAINLY end up buying the right to make and sell a box that fetches future program guide data from an ATSC datastream or online, and outputs a fake NTSC channel to feed legacy devices that only know how to find it there. If consumers start screaming loudly enough NOW (while the set top converter boxes that will be solid in blister-packs at Wal Mart next year are still being designed), it might even make it into THEM as a feature. If ATSC converter boxes are a commodity, vendors will be THRILLED to find a fairly cheap feature they can add to distinguish THEIR boxes from "the rest".

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

Gee, maybe we should patent it. Oops, too late :-) Well, it wasn't in the news from CES. Maybe TVGOS is beholden to manufacturers who want to sell more new hardware.

Bruce

Re:The real question...

[Timothy Brownawell]

The DRM terms of GPL3 are not a field-of-endeavor restriction as a "no military use" term would be, because the GPL3 terms don't restrict you from having DRM. They only restrict you from making the GPL3 software itself unmodifiable in situ or impairing its functionality if it's modified. It restricts you from having certain kinds of DRM. Much like saying it can't be used to kill people doesn't restrict it from military use.

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

It doesn't have to make DRM easy, just possible.

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, I think it was right the first time.

Re:The real question...

[Anonymous Coward]

That really depends on how you define freedom.

ok, I define freedom as a bowl of custard. how does the GPL3 affect that?

Re:The real question...

[droopycom]

So, If your goal was to control how your software is used or being paid for uses you dont agree with, you should not have used the GPL. I mean, its like your software being used by terrorists: I'm sure you dont agree with what they are doing. Yet, they could and GPL specifically allow that, for freedom sake.

You bought a lousy device, thats a problem. But do you really think that having busybox licensed under a GPL v3 from the start would have prevented that? They probably would have spent more money on something else, the result would still be the same.

You of all people should have known that having busybox in a device did not guarantee for suitability for a particular purpose. If you were fooled by SONY, if they told you "See, we include busybox, you are going to be able to use this device whichever way you see fit, and it will never be obsolete" then you might have a point.

Otherwise, you are just upset because, as a developer you see your software being used in ways you dont like, and because, as a user, you bought a lousy device that is becoming obsolete.

Re:The real question...

[droopycom]

"unmodifiable in situ or impairing its functionality if it's modified"

Is there actual language in GPLv3 to that effect ?

That would mean you are forbidden to use GPLv3 code in a rom or maybe even a write protected flash. Interesting indeed...

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

To be really specific about the problem, it is technological circumventions of the license. One of the goals of the license is that the software be modifiable by the end user. DRM is a technological circumvention of that license provision. As the copyright holder, I should indeed oppose such circumventions.

Re:The real question...

[Bruce Perens]

It would not prohibit a ROM, there is specific language about that. Write-protected FLASH, maybe.

"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.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

Re:The real question...

[galoise]

indeed there is.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[JohnFluxx]

And how much did you check? KDE has spent the last month or so relicensing pretty much all of its code base to dual license under the GPLv3. There still some problems etc, but that's to be expected.

It's been out for less than 6 months. These things can take a long time. I wonder how successful GPLv2 was 6 months after release?

GPL3 supports DRM too, just elsewhere

[Bruce Perens]

GPL3 supports DRM in non-GPL3 applications atop a GPL3 kernel, in hardware, and in microkernels under the GPL3 kernel. It is perfectly possible to implement DRM in a system with a GPL3 kernel.

Bruce

Re:GPL3 supports DRM too, just elsewhere

[mrchaotica]

Well sure, but it wouldn't be effective DRM, because (since hardware access is controlled by the kernel) you could always find somewhere to intercept the deencrypted stream. Unless you know something about it I don't (which is certainly likely; you're Bruce Perens!)...?

Re:GPL3 supports DRM too, just elsewhere

[Bruce Perens]

Thanks for the compliment :-)

Microsoft does DRM the way I'm talking about. They have a microkernel, called the "NIB", under their macrokernel. It is small, and implements the DRM as a service to the macrokernel above it. It can lock layers above it, which is necessary if the DRM device drivers live in those layers. However, if the DRM device drivers lived in the microkernel, you would be able to modify the kernel any way you wanted and it would not break the DRM.

Another way to handle this is to do the DRM in the audio and video output hardware, in which case you can just send an encrypted stream to the hardware with a kernel that does not need to be locekd down. This may be part of HDMI but I've not read enough about it.

Bruce

Re:GPL3 supports DRM too, just elsewhere

[Tacvek]

Hey Bruce, you know you could have just linked to your article which explains all that. :D http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9312220011.html

I'm curious how you know about this "NIB" system, and a bit more importantly, why a Google search for more information does not seem to yield more information. Microsoft has actually always been fairly open about the underlying architecture of their operating systems. MSDN if full of such information, even the the point that it probably leaks things Microsoft had intended to be trade secrets. So it kind of surprises me that it is hard to get any additional information about this system. Any pointers to documentation about this system would be appreciated. Thanks.

Re:GPL3 supports DRM too, just elsewhere

[Bruce Perens]

Back when MS was working on NT, some FSF folks went to a briefing and relayed what they'd heard. So, I have it all by hearsay.

Re:GPL3 supports DRM too, just elsewhere

[marcosdumay]

"It is perfectly possible to implement DRM in a system with a GPL3 kernel."

As far as it is possible to implement DRM on any kind of system, of course.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[s20451]

Well, RMS is an active Emacs project developer/patch-coordinator, as anyone on emacs-devel would know, acting in a similar role to Linus' linux role, sooo... who are you talking about?

Right, because MS Word is facing significant competition from Emacs as the text entry program of choice.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[LWATCDR]

What do expect from the faithful. First of all why does Linus have to love RMS or even free software?
Free software is a thing. It is a tool. It is a means to an end. Isn't it fine if you just like the idea of it? Or that you find enough value in it to contribute to it? Must it be love?
Same thing with RMS. I don't know the man but why is love of him required? Isn't like or respect good enough?

Yep RMS can not prevent anyone from using GPL V2 of they want. If RMS forbid the packaging of any GNU Code with Linux that would make the boys in Redmond jump for joy. It would be a big nail in the coffin of the Linux. And then you have the problem of what do you mean by packaging with? Would downloading after you install count? Maybe they should DRM gcc and glibc just to make sure that it isn't used incorrectly?

Yep you are right it is an extreme and dangerous way to look at things.
And thank goodness impossible.

sparse is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for linus to show how simply one can write a C parser, nobody would've dared to do it. Once again, amazing work, inspiration and innovation. A real programmer, unlike fakes like Miguel Icaza!

kernel or userland?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who use computers are way more concerned over their userland experience than over what kernel is the basis of the OS. For various reasons, Linux the kernel is going to stay at GPL2, but the folks who brought us the license have looked at the situation and determined there were some serious flaws, so they went on to version three, much as Linus keeps modifying his kernel because a longer view and rethinking warrants that. It is the natural order of things. It is a *pity* he cannot see that both of these advances are necessary, you cannot just sit at a stasis point and think you have all your bases covered.

    What he wants is his cake and eat it too, it is OK for him to keep coming out with new and improved versions of his stuff, but other people have to stay stuck with an older version of the critically important license? Why is this? Does he exist in some bizzaro world where he can't see the obvious threats from patent troll companies and the redmond monopolist gorilla and so on? He can claim to be a-political, but modern reality is politics and laws affect you whether you want them to or not, you can't go hide your head under the covers and just hope the boogieman goes away. And that is exactly what he keeps claiming he is going to do. Someone needs to take his baby bottle away from him and make him grow up a little. I like his kernel but he is being quite naieve and childish. I will be switching operating systems to the first decent kernel and userland package that goes to gpl3, because the future comes regardless of what Linus wishes to not-happen. If he can't be bothered to read some damn IT news now and then and stay up on the issues, maybe he needs a vacation from coding and go read some. How would he like it if a lot of people just told him to stop coming up with new kernel versions? Would he pitch a fit, just stop, or what? Nope, but he wants everyone else to stop being affected by modern laws and bogus business practices-well, he just ain't that powerful. He is living in a virtual reality make believe world where he can stop the clock on some point that he picks at random and assumes that that is all there is to it, just because he says so. Sorry, but that is just plain vanilla dumb. He's a smart guy when it comes to coding, but just doesn't get it on some things. In other words he is human, and has made a major mistake on this.

Hopefully some place like Sun will go to a gpl3 kernel and those of us who look forward to a better future with FOSS can move on, and the political and business luddites can stay stuck back in time, and to each their own, choice is good. What is going to happen to them though eventually is they are one major court decision away from being screwed over royally by some huge company or cartel. Unless he thinks the sco case was all there was to it and all is well. That's another naive thought,. the multi billion dollar company out there has only begun to defend their market share, and they have more cash to do this with than some nations GNP. he is naive to think they will ignore Linux forever just because sco is mostly over. That was a low profile scouting expedition, they haven't even started on the major artillery barrage yet, and the more it looks like they are threatened, the closer we get to that big guns stage, so the faster we can get a full FOSS implementation of the GPL3 idea out there the better, because that is the best anti patent troll armor we have right now. Linus is offering *nothing whatsoever* to counter this threat at this point other than his blankie and wishful thinking.

Hey Sun, are you paying attention? You waited some years too long to open Java, don't fart around with Solaris, GPL3 it NOW. Learn from past mistakes. You will quintuple volunteer devs within a week if you do so, and gain huge props and creds and mindshare in the global FOSS community, and you know what follows after that, which is more business.

You cannot outright purchase such support, but you can get it for free by changing your license and opening it up.

    Think about it,don't waste anymore time on this. Linus intransigence is your business opportunity of the century right now.

Re:kernel or userland?

[s20451]

I think you're not paying any attention to the current situation.

First, if you believe that GPLv3 is an improvement on GPLv2, then surely you would agree that BSD is worse than both of them. Yet, if you think of OSX as a flavour of BSD, that OS is beating the pants off Linux in the desktop marketplace. The "flaws" in GPLv2 are irrelevant from an operational perspective, and users don't care about them.

Second, the lesson of SCO is not that a license change will protect you from patent trolls. Linux could adopt GPLv3 tomorrow and still be vulnerable. The lesson is that, when the patent trolls come knocking, you had better have bigger friends with deeper pockets (like IBM) who have your back. As long as IBM, Google, and others support Linux, it's very difficult to imagine that a big player such as Microsoft will wade in to litigation.

Third, no company -- much less Sun -- will get behind a GPLv3 "linux killer" because of the controversy surrounding the issue. As we've established, users don't give a rat's ass about the benefits of GPLv3, so good luck doing better than Microsoft at killing Linux; and the ill will generated by such a move would more than offset the "huge props and creds" (isolated to a narrow community) for doing it. To see why this is: "those of us who look forward to a better future with FOSS can move on, and the political and business luddites can stay stuck back in time, and to each their own" -- seriously?? Thanks for being so patronizing, and call me back when you can turn self-righteousness into dollars.

RMS and his brilliance

[alexhmit01]

RMS is absolutely brilliant, no doubt about it. Anyone who has known him in real life can attest to his brilliance. He body of work speaks for itself, he has consistently predicted things that would happen and proposed solutions. His being the "smartest guy in the room" gives him tremendous abilities to logically predict trends well before those of us normally gifted" people, and with the ability to look like magic divination to those that are of normal intelligence or lower. These facts are not in dispute.

However, for all RMS's brilliance, his lack of social grace, to put it mildly, undermines him as the CEO of the Free Software/Open Source Enterprise. Indeed, the fact that his "movement" was hijacked and renamed Open Source, and his operating system was hijacked and renamed from GNU to Linux, is a testament to that.

Big companies don't hire CEO's that can forecast the future. CEO's hire rooms of people that do that. Companies hire CEOs that can communicate the vision of the company to the outside world AND the people inside the company. The forecasting ability of Stallman is tremendous, but the lack of communication skills is devastating for him as leader of the movement. It's tragic, because he wants to hold the reigns because this is 100% all his idea, but he's a lousy spokesman for his own ideas, and lost control by not finding a better one.

The Biggest Elephant in the Room: Copyright ownership and standing

The most important thing to the FSF is copyright assignment to maintain a single owner to have standing to enforce. If this is so important to free software, why was that not incorporated into the license. You could have a provision that did roughly the following:
1. You are free to modify for your own use, no need to even agree to license
2. You are free to distribute modifications, if you do, you agree that your modifications are a derivative work, and all copyright is maintained by the maintainer of the software (define this in the license, first person to distribute becomes maintainer, unless a new maintainer is named by them)
3. You are free to fork, but you have to rename the software, you then become maintainer of the fork, owning all derivative changes from here on out of your version

That might not have been an obvious problem in the 80s, but given the Emacs vs. Xemacs ownership of code issue (Xemacs could use Emacs, but not vice versa because FSF requires ownership of all copyrights), arguments about relicensing, etc., this was obvious by the time v3 was created. Some solution should have been found to maintain single ownership of projects for the purpose of standing that didn't require a lot of paperwork.

Examples of this:
1. GNU vs. Linux... Linux sounds like Unix (people knew Unix, liked Unix, but couldn't afford Unix), and the fact that it's a play on a name is irrelevant. Digital Unix, Xenix, HP-UX, etc., all prepped people for a *ux/*ix name for a Unix. GNU? Hard to pronounce, a silly inside joke, etc., lousy brand. The system didn't become Linux instead of GNU by fluke, Linux's superior name and brand displaced GNU.

2. Free Software / Open Source: Open Source is descriptive... there is more to it than the source being viewable, but that's the main action item, the rest is details. Free Software? confusingly vague, similar to Freeware (an already existing term with a lousy brand), and required a "manifesto" to understand. In fact, the existence of a "manifesto" was problematic, because we only here the word "manifesto" used in conjunction with "crazy people" and "revolutionaries," with a tremendous overlap between them. Free Software, captured the ideal if you understood the concept... clever for someone with a 180 IQ to create, interesting for people in the 130-150 range to understand and ponder, and meaninglessly abstract for someone in the normal range... bad branding #2, and RMS lost his movement.

3. Emacs vs. Xemacs: the exchange ab

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[Anonymous Coward]

The forecasting ability of Stallman is tremendous, but the lack of communication skills is devastating for him as leader of the movement. It's tragic, because he wants to hold the reigns because this is 100% all his idea, but he's a lousy spokesman for his own ideas, and lost control by not finding a better one.

I've never seen Stallman as a control-freak. I know he's got that reputation because he wants people to call GNU/Linux "GNU/Linux", but that's just pedantry you can expect from a geek. He doesn't seem to have had any problems ceding control over software projects he's started, and his general aim seems to be to try to explain why acting ethically is in everybody's best interests rather than to amass followers. In fact, something people have often suggested, which he is adamantly against, is a way of stopping Free Software from being used in particular ways that people don't like (e.g. on non-Free operating systems, military purposes, etc). If he were a control freak, he'd be trying silly stuff like that rather than denouncing it.

The most important thing to the FSF is copyright assignment to maintain a single owner to have standing to enforce. If this is so important to free software, why was that not incorporated into the license.

Because there's a difference between the FSF and Free Software. It certainly makes sense for the FSF to be the sole copyright holder over its projects, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for every single Free Software project. It's an orthogonal issue.

Some solution should have been found to maintain single ownership of projects for the purpose of standing that didn't require a lot of paperwork.

The paperwork is necessary for things like the SCO debacle.

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[alexhmit01]

I've never seen Stallman as a control-freak. I know he's got that reputation because he wants people to call GNU/Linux "GNU/Linux", but that's just pedantry you can expect from a geek. He doesn't seem to have had any problems ceding control over software projects he's started, and his general aim seems to be to try to explain why acting ethically is in everybody's best interests rather than to amass followers. In fact, something people have often suggested, which he is adamantly against, is a way of stopping Free Software from being used in particular ways that people don't like (e.g. on non-Free operating systems, military purposes, etc). If he were a control freak, he'd be trying silly stuff like that rather than denouncing it.

I didn't say control freak, you did. He isn't obsessed over control with software, although he's shown some examples of acting that way. However, when shown better code, he normally backs down and turns in over, which isn't an unreasonable solution, and is the "pure geek" one at that.

The GNU/Linux thing is because the systems were primarily the GNU system running on the Linux kernel, which he thought should recognize the GNU nature of the system. People on Slashdot like to make obnoxious comments about, "should we call it the GNU/X/Apache/Linux system," but Stallman's argument is real. His project wrote an entire operating system, and were then turning to the kernel. Linus wrote a simple kernel to replace the 8086-80286 targetted Minix kernel with an 80386 one and posted it. People decided to use the GNU tools instead of the simple, for educational purposes only, Minix ones, and the "Linux System" was born, using probably 95% GNU code and 5% Linus's simple kernel. All of a sudden, those GNU tools that people used where they liked them better than the standard Unix ones, were being used in the system rms envisioned, only they were calling it Linux.

Although, there is a bit of irony, since he blasted the generally freer BSD license for the advertising clause, then tried to push the horrible sounding GNU/Linux system. The fact is, GNU wrote the Unix-like operating system, yet the Linux name stuck because GNU sounds horrible AND became known as a project, not an OS. People were using GNU Tools, and nobody was going to call it Slackware GNU, because it sounds bad. If they had even done something lame like Freenix, that might have stuck. I think that the loss was on the branding front, same as Free Software lost out to Open Source, and the ideological driven push by Richard Stallman lost out to small minded thinkers targeting corporate development.

He wanted a movement. He wanted user freedom. He wants the freedom to tinker. These are his goals, and he used software and licensing as a tool to do it. Read his explanations on when to use the LGPL and when to use the GPL. If you are making a Free version an existing library, use the LGPL to make it easier to work with. If it is new functionality, put the GPL on it, so if people use the code, they need to contribute to the body of GPL'd software. His goal is a growing pile of GPL'd code (which he started) that is an enticement. He wants each developer to look at the GPL'd landscape and say, "Wow, if I will GPL my app, I can saved hundreds of thousands of dollars with this free libraries... let me do just that." Like minded people releasing GPL'd software isn't the goal, it's the means to get people that don't really agree to release GPL'd software. That's the goal of the FSF, in the article linked, he writes, "If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be i

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say control freak, you did.

I was responding to "It's tragic, because he wants to hold the reigns because this is 100% all his idea, but he's a lousy spokesman for his own ideas, and lost control by not finding a better one." You were portraying him as motivated by power, even if that wasn't your intention.

Although, there is a bit of irony, since he blasted the generally freer BSD license for the advertising clause, then tried to push the horrible sounding GNU/Linux system.

No irony, although I suspect you meant hypocrisy. See this is an example of him not being a control freak. Although he wants people to call it GNU/Linux, he doesn't try to force people to do so, unlike the BSD advertising clause example.

If Free Software can't be protected without copyright assignment

Who said that? Free Software can certainly be protected without copyright assignment. Are you referring to the fact that the FSF don't have legal standing to sue people who infringe upon the copyrights of other people? I think that's perfectly reasonable.

If the paper trail and single ownership is necessary because of things like the SCO debacle, than the FSF should weigh in on the matter, and the revision to the GPL should have included a focus on doing so.

Again, that's an orthogonal issue. It's not the fact that it's Free Software that requires the paper trail, it's the fact that they are accepting contributions from just about anybody, so they need to cover themselves if somebody contributes something they shouldn't or it is allged to be the case. This is not universal amongst Free Software.

As for the rest of what you wrote, well there's a hell of a lot of it (the majority, in fact) where I can't see the slightest connection to what I wrote. The LGPL vs GPL issue, for example. Did you have a point, did you read too much into what I wrote, were you just rambling...?

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[dbIII]

and his operating system was hijacked and renamed from GNU to Linux

First they are seperate projects and second a technical definition of operating system instead of the legal fiction MS attempted in the court case against Netscape would be far more appropriate in this forum. Look at any textbook on the subject for details.

The weird CEO comparisons are also somewhat missing the point of how things are organised. The revisonism saying gnu got renamed to linux instead of the attempted renaming with the gnu prefix later is somewhat tasteless, misleading and stupid IMHO.

One last nitpick - the "group" stuff about xemacs implies that at the time there was more than one developer on each of the two forks and possibly even that RMS was one of the developers instead of an occasional supervisor (and appointee of the guy the wrote the fork after RMS didn't like the way the emacs developer was adding support for things that were not in hurd).

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[david_thornley]

Free Software / Open Source: Open Source is descriptive... there is more to it than the source being viewable, but that's the main action item, the rest is details. Free Software? confusingly vague, similar to Freeware (an already existing term with a lousy brand), and required a "manifesto" to understand.

You can hop over the www.gnu.org and look for the philosophy section, and, specifically, what Stallman wrote about "open source".

In the first place, Free Software has two likely meanings, and "free as in speech, not as in beer" differentiates them nicely. Stallman hasn't found a good word in English that unequivocally means "free" as in speech, and neither have I, or many other people. It isn't intuitive, but it's memorable.

"Open Source", on the other hand, means software you can get the source code for. The OSI has come up with its own definition, which is mostly Free Software with the serial numbers ground off. They can't enforce it. They can enforce the use of the OSI mark, but that's not the same thing. It's ambiguous, and it's easy to drift off into a different meaning.

I'd recommend reading the original or the updated version. I can't summarize as well as Stallman can write.

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[alexhmit01]

I've read them, I understand them, I like them.... and I still think that it's a lousy brand.

GNU = GNU's Not Unix was a silly and snarky inside joke to fellow Geeks, particularly post-AT&T/BSD legal fight over whether BSD is Unix or not.

It's still a lousy brand, and lost.

I like Stallman's philosophy, I think that his two meanings in English is interesting.

It's still a lousy brand and his brand lost. If you need a manifesto to explain it, it's not a good brand. If he had gone with Freedom Software, it would have still been bad (most people don't think about Freedom), but not as horrible.

He took a name that was confusingly similar to the "service mark" that lousy software that is given away called Freeware, and branded his movement on it.

I was generously quoting RMS, I've read his work. However, to pretend that on the communication side, he hasn't lost the two biggest brands that he created, the Free Software Movement (to the Open Source Guys) and the GNU Project (that's become the Linux Operating System), means ignoring the reality.

So we can sit here and talk about how brilliant the man is (which isn't in dispute by me), or acknowledge that as brilliant a man as he is, his branding efforts that have NOT changed since the early GNU days (HURD was given an even dumber name) demonstrates that he doesn't learn from his mistakes in the communication arena. So people with possible influence over him, like Bruce Perens who this thread started with, who asked why people don't listen to him, need to actually understand why people don't listen to him. Since he is so good at predicting our problems 1-2 decades before they happen, we should listen to him, but aren't. We can sit around complaining and implying that people are too dumb to get it (which you inadvertently done, I criticize branding, you assume I haven't read the manifesto that I cite in my writing), or we can figure out why the brilliant creator of this movement ISN'T the strategic planner that the "leaders" are listening to.

There is a REAL problem with RMS's communication skills and branding ideas, and since his part of the world is controlled 100% by him (FSF land), unless people can persuade him to change the approach, we will continue to have RMS predict problems, identify problems, and then have us do nothing because the Eric S. Raymond's of the world will not listen and do their own thing, and have consistently hijacked the movement.

Linux may be amongst the least "technically interesting" of the Free Software Projects, but it's the brand's flagship, so pretending that it not going GPL v3 is irrelevant is silly.

There is a real problem with the direction hardware is going, RMS is right. The anti-GPL 3 people (myself included), ignore the fact that in the long run, generic PC hardware will become a shrinking market, an expensive market (like the Unix workstation market), then possibly no market. The market forces pushing for cheaper and more locked down will be a problem. Linus thinks that there is a hardware/software line that he won't cross, he just wants the code returned, and doesn't care about tinkering on locked down hardware, he's happy to have more code. RMS is focused on a world where there is no hardware that isn't locked down, and we're ignoring that risk, happy with code, and ignoring that code is being used on systems without the freedom to tinker.

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[alexhmit01]

You were portraying him as motivated by power, even if that wasn't your intention.

He's motivated by his desire for the world to embrace Free Software. It's not quite "make the world a better place," but he clearly hates copyrighted proprietary software, and wants to have as little as it as possible so that he can easily ignore it and focus on his right to tinker.

He lost control of the movement when it became "Open Source," which let people intentionally marginalize the FSF and RMS. The goal of them was to "take Free Software and make it palatable to businesses," meaning, ditch the philosophy and just take the software, and maybe the development model that sprung up around Apache and Linux. Open Source won because it's a better brand.

Free Software requires reading explanations and manifestos to understand.
Open Source is a descriptive name. Sure there is the legal mumbo jumbo about derivatives needing to be open source as well, but the part that a USER of Free Software would care about is the open source nature.

Open Source's brand wins, OSI guys take control of movement because of name change.

GNU System has the code, it's put on a Linux Kernel. OS isn't called GNU, it's called Linux. When Tech Reporters want to talk to the "boss," they go to the CEO of Linux, Linus Torvalds. If the GNU system had a good brand, and Linus had been invited to contribute his kernel to GNU (or they had already written a simple kernel so people could run GNU), then Tech Reporters would ask the head of GNU for a quote, and that would be RMS.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Time to change behavior so this stops happening.

Re:RMS and his brilliance

[Anonymous Coward]

He took a name that was confusingly similar to the "service mark" that lousy software that is given away called Freeware, and branded his movement on it.

Actually, the term "freeware" was coined at around the same time as the GNU project was launched. It certainly wasn't widely-known at the time.

So we can sit here and talk about how brilliant the man is (which isn't in dispute by me), or acknowledge that as brilliant a man as he is, his branding efforts that have NOT changed since the early GNU days (HURD was given an even dumber name) demonstrates that he doesn't learn from his mistakes in the communication arena.

Except the original question was asking why geeks follow Torvald's lead rather than Stallman's. That's got practically nothing to do with branding, you've just latched your pet "CEO" theory onto something quite unrelated.

unless people can persuade him to change the approach, we will continue to have RMS predict problems, identify problems, and then have us do nothing because the Eric S. Raymond's of the world will not listen and do their own thing, and have consistently hijacked the movement.

The ESRs of the world don't listen because of their egos, not because the Free Software "brand" needs a manifesto to understand (it doesn't, by the way, the manifesto was for the GNU project, and the Free Software definition is on a par with the Open Source fefinition).

There is a real problem with the direction hardware is going, RMS is right. The anti-GPL 3 people (myself included), ignore the fact that in the long run, generic PC hardware will become a shrinking market, an expensive market (like the Unix workstation market), then possibly no market. The market forces pushing for cheaper and more locked down will be a problem. Linus thinks that there is a hardware/software line that he won't cross, he just wants the code returned, and doesn't care about tinkering on locked down hardware, he's happy to have more code. RMS is focused on a world where there is no hardware that isn't locked down, and we're ignoring that risk, happy with code, and ignoring that code is being used on systems without the freedom to tinker.

Yes, and whether the HURD is a silly name for a kernel or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this.

Yeah, mostly because of lack of harm

[alexhmit01]

So Linus announces 90 day notice: project intends to switch to GPL 3, which is similar in intent but different in detail to v2.0. The core of the code is owned by him because either he wrote it, or it is a derivative work. Anyone objecting, please notify within 90 days to have your code removed before it is released under GPL 3. If you notify after 90 days, you will remove the code, but it's distribution in downstream versions will remain, and you will have to contact the distributers if you want your code removed.

I also would suggest that for non-derivative chunks, you contact them specifically. Any of the file systems PORTED to Linux from companies own OSes clearly are not Linux derivatives, because they existed before the Linux version. I would not include them unless specifically relicensed until GPL 3... I think that the blanket notice is probably fine for minor things like device drivers that are 1. clear derivative works, and 2. of no real value to the author, so if he notifies after day 91 and some stuff has included it, he doesn't have standing to complain because there is no real loss.

Relicensing IBM's file system without permission might be more problematic.

I agree with you and think that your legal advisors are probably correct. The minor "copyright holders" are relatively insignificant, and most of their work, patches, bug fixes, etc., are derivative works, not really independent copyrighted works. I find it unlikely that a court would grant standing to an estate of someone that contributed code for free to a project under a free license, complaining about it's migration to a newer but similar free license, because there is no harm.

Just like descendants get screwed when state AG's refuse to bring action when non-profits violate the intention of donors in their statements, and the AG is the only one with standing to enforce, but they tend to care about the living and their benefits from the non-profit, far more than the intentions of the dead donor that endowed them.

So I take your softwarea

[Anonymous Coward]

under the GPL and create a binary from the code that is signed. The binary is also encrypted. So I now have DRM that all I need is a bootloader that will decrypt the OS and run it.

So now prove that I haven't put a backdoor into it.

The only way you can prove that is by signing and encrypting the source I gave you and check it against the binary I've given you.

But you can't.

If it does something that is really new and cool, how do you know if it happens because I changed your code to do it and not, as I maintain, via a separate process?

You can't.

If you ask for any changes, can I encrypt that source so that you can't pass it on? If I can't do that, why can Tivo do that with their binary? I can't pass the binary on and I can't prove that the source actually is what they installed.

Remember the C compiler backdoor? If nobody could KNOW the compiler was the result of the source code given and you couldn't check the results independantly on the same hardware, it would NEVER have been found.

Nothing New to See Here

[rla3rd]

Please move along...

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[MightyMartian]

And look, more fanatics getting mod points. Fuck you, you fucking retard, I've got more karma in my pinky then you've got in your entire body. Fucking loon.

MOD PARENT UP!

[sgtrock]

That's the most succinct, insightful reasoning that I've ever seen on Stallman's current place in the FOSS world. :)

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, is it about market share? Let's ask Bill Gates what he thinks about the GPL. Certainly the corporation he built dwarfs anything Linus may have done.

Yes, Torvalds is quite out of touch with freedom.

[jbn-o]

RMS wrote a lot of software: he's the initial programmer of GCC, GDB, GNU Emacs, and lots of other software. Judging this by how much software one writes is a great way to dodge the real issues at hand, never having taken these issues of software freedom seriously to begin with. RMS is also the principal author of the GNU General Public Licenses. RMS not only theorizes, he also puts theory into practice, and he has established a track record of seeing restrictions to our freedom well before others.

Torvalds is widely covered when he talks about the GPL. That coverage usually neglects to tell the audience that Torvalds doesn't share the same appreciation of freedom RMS, the GNU Project, and the FSF do. Torvalds may be an excellent programmer, he may make great decisions on a wide range of technical matters that concern Linux kernel development and source code management (not surprising since he's the initial author of the Linux kernel and git), but it should be clear to all by now that when it comes to defending your freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify computer programs, Torvalds is simply not interested.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

a huge difference of opinion between someone who actually produces something, and those who spend all day theorizin

You are so right! RMS is just a lazy bastard who has never contributed anything to the community. Linus did his early work completely from scratch. Whatever you do don't read this book, it is full of lies: Open Sources

The real solution

[Anonymous Coward]

as you said a work-around or look into a class-action suet seeing as how the product is not as hdtv compatible as advertising made it out to be.

"Do you still beat your wife?"

[Anonymous Coward]

>but should also acknowledge their differences when doing so, so that when one
>effort does something to serve some of their separate interests the other
>group doesn't take it like a betrayal.

Of course this would be ideal but the open source movement has tons of egomaniacs with the social skills of hyenas as leaders.
Its normal when you hear Torvalds, Miguel and even Theo talk that followers start believing that this is the way group dynamics should work.
A lot of the fanbois will always have excuses ready for Linus like 'he has no time for fools. he speaks his mind and doestn care about the consequences' to justify their heroes behaviour.
imagine I was to single out a group whose beliefs I dont respect and actually ridicule: the jews.
(I actually could use any religion but I love how people get all unconfortable when an example is made of their beliefs as opposed to roman catholics or muslims). If every sentence I spoke had the words 'religious lunatics or fanatics' to remind people at every chance that they believe in fairy tales, elfs and boogeymen, you would point out this childish behavior yet we have lazy people who repete the meme 'religious' to describe people who defend the GPL and the principles behind it.

Its like asking "Do you still beat your wife?"

Most people I know who work on GPLed projects take part in them because of the collaborative and trickle down aspects of the GPL.
Never met one who is willing to kill or die for the GPL. None pray at a specially made FSF altar.

"Do you still beat your wife?"

But do I know people who are protective of the GPL and who are vocal about it?
Yeah, so are jews (oooh, I must be evil to bring them up..c'mon...you can feel the anger rising... you are about to burst), football fans, Britney fans and so on. Vocal, passionanate and protective.

Personally, I despise people like Miguel and his friends at Novell, not because of fanaticism but because as a 'Non-Compensated Individual Hobbyist Developer', I am directly threathened by the language in the infamous agreement which creates different levels of collaborators depending on what side of the Microsoft. This isnt some theoretical and possible problem that 'could' arise. It is real and it affects me directly. Yet Ive had Novell people tell me that Im a zealot because "Im so in love with the GPL". Never mind that this is their company's doing, Im a fanatic because Novell is helping drive a stake through the collaborative model which we use.

On a side note, I think the v3 was too watered down to where it became 2.5.
If you are going to make a new license, make it different.
I work on GPL2 and GPL3 projects as well as LGPL. As long as my work DOESNT get closed off a la BSD to benefit some company to the detriment of the user (freedom) and coders, its all good but I did see the wisdom of having another license sooner or later which takes in consideration all that has happened since version 2 came out almost 2 decades ago.
Was there even an internet in those days? ;-)

The Novell deal is what convinced me sooner was already here.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[Chandon Seldon]

Linux wouldn't have even gotten off the ground if it weren't for the work that RMS did, like GCC and the GPL.

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[Timothy Brownawell]

If I were RMS, I would forbid the packaging of any GNU code with a GPLv2 GNU/Linux. Without altering the language of the GPL, simply put, he can't.

It wouldn't actually be that big of a change, just remove the exclusions (for things like system libraries) from the definition of "corresponding source". That's a far smaller change than, say, the new patent language or the anti-tivo section.

Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...does it run on linux?

torrent or mirror for the audio?

[crazybilly]

anybody got a torrent or mirror link for the audio? It's wicked slow with the load, right now.

Re:A little out of touch, are we?

[recharged95]

So you're saying that those who do, do it, those who can't, teach? Hmmm... sounds vaguely familiar.

Linux cannot be made GPL3 for legal reasons

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Current Linux code is owned by all the contributors. Linus is only one of very many contributors (perhaps 10% of the code). Those contributors have contributed under GPL2 and only those contributors can relicence their individual contibutions as GPL3. Linus can relicence his contributions but has no authority to do it for other contributors.

To move Linux to GPL3 would require one of (a) tracking down every contributor and getting their OK or (b) starting from a clean GPL3 footing and getting GPL3 contributions.

The effort (cost) of doing this has insignificant upside, so it just won't happen.

Re:Linux cannot be made GPL3 for legal reasons

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

To move Linux to GPL3 would require one of (a) tracking down every contributor and getting their OK or (b) starting from a clean GPL3 footing and getting GPL3 contributions.

Or GPLv2-only code could be phased out, but it would take planning. A large percentage of kernel code is already GPLv3 compatible. If Linus wanted to move to GPLv3, he could institute a policy of only accepting contributions that were compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. Eventually, a lot of GPLv2-only code would become obsolete and get replaced with better, GPLv3-compatible code. The rest could be relicensed (by its copyright holders), rewritten, or dropped. At that point, new releases could switch to GPLv3 only.

It could even happen without Linus's permission (though that's a lot less likely), since---until recently---a good chunk of Linux was licensed under _any_ version of the GPL, thanks to section 9 of GPLv2. (Linus probably denies this today, but a feature of the GPL is that he can't retroactively revoke permissions he previously granted under it.)

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[Trogre]

Given that karma is a totally fictitious construct, you're probably right.

Slashdot needs to boost its click count...

[Anonymous Coward]

Recycles GPL2->GPL3 Linux argument.

World wishes for a "kick CmdrTaco in the nuts" option on the main page.

Film at 11.

I like how

[sentientbrendan]

RMS has become the Jesus of the open source movement, and everything he does is seen as worthy of adulation and beyond criticism.

Oh! You made a new version of GPL RMS? It must be *sooo* wonderful. I will rub it all over my body, and then force it on the unbelievers who still cling to your old license.

Seriously though, what's with all these people saying that Torvalds is some kind of shill for not adopting GPLv3? There would *be* no meaningful open source movement without Torvalds.

The guys on the "free software" side of the fence just can't seem to accept that some people have a different perspective and think in terms of "open source" software. It seems like a minor dispute to me (free software vs open source), but there's always some nut trying to start a holy war about it...

Can't we all just get along?

Open/Free software's bigger than any one person...

[argent]

Seriously though, what's with all these people saying that Torvalds is some kind of shill for not adopting GPLv3? There would *be* no meaningful open source movement without Torvalds.

That makes as much sense as saying there would be no meaningful open source movement without RMS.

The open source movement's roots go back before the GPL, let alone Linux. Freely redistributable compilers and operating systems, editors and shells, applications and utilities, go back to the '70s. By the early '80s the whatever-you-want-to-call-it movement was already in full swing. Without RMS or Linus things might have been different, but not enormously so. It's like saying that James Watt was needed for the steam engine to succeed, or Ford for the automobile. When it's steam engine time, you get steam engines. This is open source time.

I think this is fucked up

[Crayon Kid]

I think this is fucked up and I still have trouble believing that GPLv2 and the copyright law in the US allows for this.

If I contribute code to a GPLv2 project I expect it to remain licensed as GPLv2 until I make an explicit decision to change it to something else. I don't want to wake up a year later and discover that for some reason I missed a notification and that the default was to relicense my code to something else. I'd expect the default to be to pull my code from the relicensed version completely and replace it, if necessary, with a version written by someone else, whose author explicitly agrees to the new license.

IANAL, but for every programmer these days a certain understanding of copyright and licensing is needed. So it's news to me and my understanding of these things that, I say it again, GPLv2 and the copyright law would allow for this. IF it's true, and if someone pulled this on me, I'd be seriously pissed. FWIW, I seriously advice Linus and whoever else it thinking of doing something like this, to consider it very very carefully. It can and will create a lot of ill-will.

Personally, I would instantly cease any contribution to any public project with multiple copyright holders if this was proven possible. Taking one's code and relicensing it against their explicit intention, no matter how legal it can be, is fucked up. Sure, you can argue that it was there all along and I just didn't have the legal training to notice it, in which case I'd reply that GPLv2 can kiss my black ass and forget any other contribution from me in the future. Being screwed is being screwed, no matter how you justify it.

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[Skye16]

That's fine. Then we fork before the new code goes to that license and we "start" from there.

Yes, it would be an unfortunate situation, but when it comes down to GNU tools (FSF managed) and once-were-GNU-tools (broader Linux community managed), I'm not too terribly concerned.

At the same time, I'd hope it wouldn't come to that.

Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

The "wars" are also the result of one group of people dearly needing a big-name project to jump on board so they can point to it and say "See? They agree with us, so we are right!" There are fewer projects as big and as well known as the Linux kernel.

Linux isn't the poster child for the FSF. It's not a religion. It began as a hobby for Linus, and it has become a very useful tool for business and industry. The FSF needs to get the HURD in a working, releasable state if they want a platform to rally around.

-M

Waking up a year later

[Bruce Perens]

I don't want to wake up a year later and discover that for some reason I missed a notification and that the default was to relicense my code to something else.

If you are a Linux kernel developer, this has already happened to you. Linus has changed critical license details not once but twice.