Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 26th Jan 2006 02:21 UTC, submitted by Moparx
Linux Linus posted on the Linux Kernel Mailing List today and said that the kernel will not be moving to GPLv3. "The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general. And quite frankly, I don't see that changing."
Order by: Score:
And?
by sigzero on Thu 26th Jan 2006 02:34 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

I think that one was a no brainer.

Reply Score: 1

Suprise?
by Milo_Hoffman on Thu 26th Jan 2006 02:39 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not a big suprise. In fact I expect that MANY exsisting GPL projects will not try to change their license because its too much trouble to get permission from EVERY single person that contributed code to that project.


GPL3 will likely be used by new projects first, or projects that strictly have a small number of known developers that can all agree to the license change.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Suprise?
by rhavyn on Thu 26th Jan 2006 03:15 UTC in reply to "Suprise?"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not a big suprise. In fact I expect that MANY exsisting GPL projects will not try to change their license because its too much trouble to get permission from EVERY single person that contributed code to that project.

If the project included the "or later" as used in the standard GPL boilerplate then you don't need permission from any of the authors to distribute the software under the GPL v3. Looking at the Gaim source code, I can redistribute it under the GPL v3 and I've never even submitted a bug report to gaim much less contributed code.

So I would guess, if the community likes it most GPL projects will be distributed under the GPL v3 irregardless of what the project's developers think.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Suprise?
by the_trapper on Thu 26th Jan 2006 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Suprise?"
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

The "or later" clause is a very dangerous thing IMHO. The Free Software Foundation is pretty innoculous at this point in time, so most projects that use the GPL will pretty much accept any changes that are made in further revisions.

However, what if the FSF is taken over by other interests, who choose to sneak clauses into the GPL v7 that fly completely in the face of everything you believe in? Where do you stand legally? Sure you can tack on a damage control clause that says GPL v6 or earlier at that point, but the damage is already done. You've got a GPL v7 fork and a GPL v6 fork.

Call me paranoid, but that is not a risk I would be willing to take with my software. I completely understand where Linus is coming from on this one.

(Note that GPL v6 and v7 are fictional and solely for the sake of example.)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Suprise?
by thebluesgnr on Thu 26th Jan 2006 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Suprise?"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

The "or later" clause is not dangerous at all. The FSF stands, today, for the same things it did in 1985 (or 1983 actually, but there wasn't a FSF then, only the GNU project).

The reason Linus didn't use the "or later" clause is that he doesn't agree with the FSF in principle. Linus thinks the "open source" development model produces better software, he doesn't agree that users of software should have the four basic freedoms outlined by the FSF.

Usually, if you agree with the FSF then you can safely choose the GPL "v2 or later". If you just think the GPL is a good way to maintain the development of your software, but you're not interested in the "four freedoms", the GPL v2 is better.

Edited 2006-01-26 06:09

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Suprise?
by cprpop on Thu 26th Jan 2006 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Suprise?"
cprpop Member since:
2005-07-05

Please read Linus' reply. The "or later" thing is just an condensed extra explanation, which, granted, seems to generate some confusion. It is NOT part of the license.

The GPLv2 license itself does not allow conversion to anything else by default. IF the author(s) decide to change or modify it in any way, they should state so explicitly in an addendum to the text of the GPL.

That piece of blurb is not a license, I repeat. It would be silly if you think about it: let anybody relicense under a yet unknown license? Who'd that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Suprise?
by rhavyn on Thu 26th Jan 2006 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Suprise?"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

I did read Linus' reply and, if you read my comment, I wasn't talking about Linux. Most projects licensed under the GPL use the "or later" clause. Gaim is one example which does just that. The Linux kernel is by far outside the norm in this regard.

Reply Score: 1

v Oh well...
by morgoth on Thu 26th Jan 2006 04:04 UTC
RE: Oh well...
by Wrawrat on Thu 26th Jan 2006 04:42 UTC in reply to "Oh well..."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

All that, just because he didn't liked the draft? Wow. I guess he does have some regrets when he reads comments like this. Debian rejected the GFDL; does that make them bloody capitalists?

Many followers of the FSF keep stating that our dear operating system is GNU/Linux, not simply Linux. Well, they are right: Linux is independant from the GNU project, therefore it doesn't have to follow the footsteps from RMS nor its ideals.

I believe Linus made a wise decision when he removed the "or later" clause from the licence because he couldn't foresee the future and it looks like it was the right thing to do.

Linus, as with the group behind Debian, have their own goals and motivations. They don't necessarily want to achieve what Stallman wants, nor they should be forced to.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Oh well...
by sean batten on Thu 26th Jan 2006 11:03 UTC in reply to "Oh well..."
sean batten Member since:
2005-07-06

Why has this comment been marked down to -3? It doesn't contains:

Personal attacks or offensive language
Off-topic comments
Spam or advertisements

Give the guy a break. You may not agree with his opinion, but don't try to censor him by pushing his score down so that it won't get picked up if you've got the default score filter in place.

It always amazes me how the moment anyone has a moan about Linus the fanboys rally round. So much for free and open....

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh well...
by r_a_trip on Thu 26th Jan 2006 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh well..."
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

It is a piece of slander. It might be why it is at minus three.

Just because Linus says no to a draft of the GPL V3, does not make him forsake his own principles for money.

(FWIW: I did not vote on the OP)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oh well...
by sean batten on Thu 26th Jan 2006 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh well..."
sean batten Member since:
2005-07-06

Slander is a verbal defamatory comment, I think you'll find you meant libelous... :-)

Either way, it would only be libelous if he was presenting it as fact. He's just voicing his opinion, as indicated by the first 4 words, "Well, my take is".

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Oh well...
by Sphinx on Thu 26th Jan 2006 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh well..."
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

So the equivalent of calling someone a money grubbing whore who's sorry they committed an act of benevolence is not defamatory?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh well...
by morgoth on Fri 27th Jan 2006 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh well..."
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Thanks Sean. The problem is that the abuse of moderation of posts isn't being looked at by the admins for osnews.com. They have no interest in doing so. I've emailed them several times and NEVER received a reply. My suggestion is to allow tracking of WHO moderated you down, and to see if there is a clear pattern of abuse, which I'm pretty sure you'll find there is. Sadly, people can abuse the moderating system and get away with it, good isn't it?

By moderating my post down, they are indee censoring it - it went from 1 to -3 pretty quickly. It's quite clear that there are people out there that won't tolerate anyone else's view other than their own narrow minded views. I rarely moderate someone down, and then I stick to the rules. If I disagree with someone elses post, I'll reply to them, and state why I disagree with them, not use the moderation system as a tool to censor.

It'd be nice to be treated the same way by others as I treat them, but sadly, it isn't going to happen, at least, not unless the lazy osnews.com admins get off their asses and do something to fix this broken moderation system!

Dave

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Oh well...
by morgoth on Fri 27th Jan 2006 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh well..."
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Ahh, it's good to see that this post was also moderated down, without even a reply!!! Surely, if you disagree with a post that vehemently, or it's totally wrong, it deserves a reply, not just being moderated down, no? Further more, please show me where I've broken the moderation rules, justifying moderation down?

Those that have moderated my posts down are nothing but what us Australians call "gutless wonders".

osnews.com admins, what is the point of a moderating system that you aren't going to monitor for abuse? Or is it there just to make things look pretty? Furthermore, don't you think that a no reply to a user who's voicing a genuine concern is rather rude?

Dave

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Oh well...
by Googlesaurus on Fri 27th Jan 2006 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh well..."
RE[5]: Oh well...
by morgoth on Fri 27th Jan 2006 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Oh well..."
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "If you are posting what you hope others will mod up, you are doing it wrong....... "

No. That was not my intention.

Quote: "Just cut to the chase, and say what the fcuk ever is on your mind....."

I have - several times.

Quote: "I don't give a damn how I am going to be "modded" when I post here"

Neither do I - mostly. What I dislike though, is being wrongly moderated down, and moderated down outside of the rules of moderation. Furthermore, I am disappointed that the osnews.com admins have no desire to correct the widespread abuse of moderation. You have set rules in place for a reason, and in this instance, they are not being adhered to. Certain individuals are wrongly moderating mine, and others, posts down, and this should be stopped.

The whole idea of self moderation was for the users to moderate posts, and moderate them within the rules. That's why when you choose to moderate a post down, you get the little osnews.com blurb about why you are moderating the post down. Can you point to me where any of my previous posts on this topic actually warranted moderating down as per the rules? Of course you can't, because I didn't break any of the rules, and therefore, my posts should never have been moderated down. I take some pride in my posts here, and it annoys me to have my "rep" ruined by people incorrectly moderating my posts down. I've most probably lost 30 odd moderation points due to wrongful and vengeful moderation down, which isn't really acceptable in my eyes. Most forums wouldn't tolerate this abuse of moderation priviledges.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Oh well...
by Wrawrat on Fri 27th Jan 2006 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Oh well..."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

While this is not applicable to your first post (the one I gave a reply to), I must say that your public crusade against the moderation system is completely off-topic...

Reply Score: 1

license termination
by decimator on Thu 26th Jan 2006 04:17 UTC
decimator
Member since:
2006-01-16

I would expect many developers will prefer version 2 because of the auto-termination. If you don't want people violating the GPL on your code, version 2 is better because their license is automatically terminated if they violate the GPL. You don't have to enforce your rights by sending letters to violators with version 2. In version 3, people can legally violate the terms of the GPL as long as they are not caught.

Reply Score: 3

Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by mike hess on Thu 26th Jan 2006 04:24 UTC
mike hess
Member since:
2005-08-22

I have nothing but respect for Torvolds, however, its been clear for quite some time that he doesn't put much value on the concept of Software freedom. Him and RMS battle over it every once in a while, and they just don't see eye to eye on the issue.

I thought maybe Linus would be more open to it after the Bitkeeper debacle, but it doesn't seem that way.

Not to say that GPL3 is good and GPL2 is bad, far from it, but increasingly Linus seems to want little to do with the "ethics" of software development.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by d a v i d on Thu 26th Jan 2006 04:40 UTC in reply to "Doesn't appreciate freedom."
d a v i d Member since:
2005-07-06

Did he ever? I don't know much about Linus, but from what I have seen he appears to concern himself more with the engineering of software as opposed to the politics of it.

And good on him for that!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by Wrawrat on Thu 26th Jan 2006 04:55 UTC in reply to "Doesn't appreciate freedom."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Your title is ironic since Linus removed the clause for keeping his freedom of choosing a licence.

You're right, though. To my knowledge, Linus was never a big proponent of the FSF. I have read many of his posts and mails and it seems that he is not much interested in politics nor ideology. Although I have nothing to corroborate this, I remember reading that he adopted the GPL for his project quite reluctantly. At that time (the 0.01 days), he was distribuing the source to selected people.

As for "ethics of software development", I guess you meant "ethics of software development, according to Stallman and his FSF". From my perspective, he does adheres quite well to the ethics of programming.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by macisaac on Thu 26th Jan 2006 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom."
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

I sort of doubt the reluctant Sure it's well known he has his differences with Stallman and folk, however I seem to recall him saying that putting Linux under GPL was one of the best moves he made. I also seem to remember that he adopted the GPL after hearing speech detailing it (by Stallman perhaps?), and was actually rather enthused by the idea. Though if I also remember correctly the very early versions of Linux were not GPL, but under some other type of free'ish license he might have concocted himself (was there a no-commmercial clause or something?...)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by Matt Giacomini on Thu 26th Jan 2006 06:06 UTC in reply to "Doesn't appreciate freedom."
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

"its been clear for quite some time that he doesn't put much value on the concept of Software freedom"

From what I have read of Linus has never cared much about the politics and religion of GPL.

In my "small neck of the woods" I have noticed two type of people:

1) People who go around preaching software politics and religion. All full of energy and grand ideas of how to reinvent software and save the world through some license.

2) People who put their heads down and write code and actually build the software. They pick a license that suites their needs, and generally their ideals, but for the most part it is about the code.

I find it funny when the software politicitian are surprised by the fact that many open source developers don't care much for the politics behind the movement. Like we are traitors, or have abandond the movement, or some other such crap....

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by Shane on Thu 26th Jan 2006 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom."
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

In my "small neck of the woods" I have noticed two type of people:

1) People who go around preaching software politics and religion. All full of energy and grand ideas of how to reinvent software and save the world through some license.

2) People who put their heads down and write code and actually build the software. They pick a license that suites their needs, and generally their ideals, but for the most part it is about the code.

I find it funny when the software politicitian are surprised by the fact that many open source developers don't care much for the politics behind the movement. Like we are traitors, or have abandond the movement, or some other such crap....


I fully concur. The loudest zealots are usually the non-coders. To them, I am often tempted to ask: what was your contribution?

Reply Score: 4

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The loudest zealots are usually the non-coders. To them, I am often tempted to ask: what was your contribution?

Well, we could be tempted to say that our use of your code elevated you from being an invisible codemonkey to being an independent software developer... But we'll be nice and just say that we are your unpaid support and marketing staff.

We need you as much as you need us. Free and Open Source software is a symbiotic community affair. Users get software under very good conditions, developers get recognition (and attached benefits) for their software developments. Take out the non-coders and see if the whole FOSS thing still makes sense or is as big as it is now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by Shane on Thu 26th Jan 2006 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Doesn't appreciate freedom."
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, we could be tempted to say that our use of your code elevated you from being an invisible codemonkey to being an independent software developer... But we'll be nice and just say that we are your unpaid support and marketing staff.

We need you as much as you need us. Free and Open Source software is a symbiotic community affair. Users get software under very good conditions, developers get recognition (and attached benefits) for their software developments. Take out the non-coders and see if the whole FOSS thing still makes sense or is as big as it is now.


You are right about the community angle, of course. Coders and non-coders need each other.

Where it grates though, is when the zealots try to cram their licenses/agendas down your throat. Be it the GPL > * camp, BSDL > * camp, etc.

Reply Score: 2

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

The GPL is not a religion, there's no religion at all involved there. It's a legal document written to be the license of the software written by the GNU project in their goal if writing a completely free operating system.

You don't really have to agree with the GPL or software freedom. Some people obviously don't, and they even created the "Open Source" definition to make that perfectly clear.

The FSF doesn't treat "Open Source" advocates as traitors or enemies. In fact, if you read a bit on fsf.org you'll see they collaborate on some work (a lot of people working on FSF projects are "open source" advocates for example). The only thing they usually try to do is make it clear to people that Free software is not the same as open source, because they don't want people to think that free software is about a development model for writing software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by Kris on Thu 26th Jan 2006 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom."
Kris Member since:
2005-07-24

You forgot
0) People who do neither
3) People who do boths (like RMS)

other than that, I agree.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by oshogg on Thu 26th Jan 2006 08:01 UTC in reply to "Doesn't appreciate freedom."
oshogg Member since:
2006-01-26

"however, its been clear for quite some time that he doesn't put much value on the concept of Software freedom"

And this is about a person whose whole life work is free (both as in beer and speech) software ...

Osho

Reply Score: 2

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

"And this is about a person whose whole life work is free (both as in beer and speech) software ... "

Except that he would not tell you that his life's work is free software, but that it is open source software, and that makes the argument you're replying to. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Doesn't appreciate freedom.
by tomcat on Thu 26th Jan 2006 20:18 UTC in reply to "Doesn't appreciate freedom."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I have nothing but respect for Torvolds, however, its been clear for quite some time that he doesn't put much value on the concept of Software freedom. Him and RMS battle over it every once in a while, and they just don't see eye to eye on the issue. I thought maybe Linus would be more open to it after the Bitkeeper debacle, but it doesn't seem that way.


Please clarify. Torvalds was pretty up front about not wanting to use a commercial solution or pay royalties for a source control management system. I don't see how that differs all that much from how Stallman would see things...

Reply Score: 1

Even if...
by orestes on Thu 26th Jan 2006 04:52 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

Linus actually wanted to relicense the kernel, wouldn't that require the consent of everyone whose code is in the kernel?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Even if...
by sigzero on Thu 26th Jan 2006 20:53 UTC in reply to "Even if..."
sigzero Member since:
2006-01-03

"Linus actually wanted to relicense the kernel, wouldn't that require the consent of everyone whose code is in the kernel?"

Why yes, yes it would. Which is why it will never happen. Aside from the fact Linus has said not GPL3.

Reply Score: 1

Where does the kernel begin and end?
by stephanem on Thu 26th Jan 2006 05:41 UTC
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

People claim drivers are part of the kernel, subsystems like V4L, DVB, IPV6 are part of the kernel - but none of these have been written by Linus.

So now we have a case of GPLv2 infecting GPLv3 (and vice versa) and that means if driver developers start putting their work in GPLv3 then doesn't the kernel get infected?

Reply Score: 1

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

I assume Linus won't accept patches licensed under the GPL "v3 or later", but only patches under the "v2 or later".

What's sad in his post is that the only problem pointed out in the GPL v3 is a complete misconception. This:
"I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example."

I think it's insane someone like him couldn't bother to read anything about the new GPL to find out that that's absolutely NOT true.

Reply Score: 0

Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

It is true in some cases. If a binary has to be signed by a particular key in order to run, then that private key is considered part of the source code and must be released.

Reply Score: 2

Understanding the GPL
by Dark_Knight on Thu 26th Jan 2006 06:25 UTC
Dark_Knight
Member since:
2005-07-10

I was under the impression that the revision to the GPL was for better securing Linux in a changing global market. Also GPL v3 is to provide legal representitives a better understanding of what the GPL is. For those that would like to read more on the GPL see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL which includes a draft of the GPL v3.

Reply Score: 2

Good man
by moleskine on Thu 26th Jan 2006 11:50 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Seems to me that once again Linus Torvalds is showing two outstanding qualities: common sense, and standing up for what you think is right instead of bowing to pressure.

Linux is not going to prosper under the tutelage of self-important committees (the Debian Project) or politically-motivated cranks (Stallman). Indeed if Stallman et al had their way, Linux would likely end up almost unusable and repel scores of folks who might otherwise get a lot of benefit from it. Software like this has to be a living thing that can work in the world as it is. You can start worrying about ideological purity when you get to the pearly gates.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good man
by dukeinlondon on Thu 26th Jan 2006 12:20 UTC in reply to "Good man"
dukeinlondon Member since:
2005-07-06

They might not agree on everything but you can't separate the contributions of all these guys.

The GPL wouldn't be much without successes like linux, which in turn would have had a hard time gathering that momentum without the GPL and the emergence of Debian and other distros to actually make it shine in action.

Reply Score: 1

GPLv3 is far from set in stone
by shanecoughlan on Thu 26th Jan 2006 12:15 UTC
shanecoughlan
Member since:
2006-01-26

Hello guys

It's all getting a little heated here, and I think that's a bit premature. The GPLv3 is still only a draft document, with a year of opinion and discussion to go before anything is formally released. There is a website for discussing what's good and bad about the draft. If you have any thoughts please post them there, so that they can be properly taken into account in the creation of this license.

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/

Regards to all ;)

Reply Score: 1

Reality is Linus dont mather much
by Moulinneuf on Thu 26th Jan 2006 12:31 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all , I dont see who advised Linus on this , but I dont think that there much validity or accuracy to his point , he might whant to instead of complaining on the side join the discussion directly , I am sure the FSF will welcome him to the discussion table.

If your interested to see the diff between V2 and V3 :

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060118155841115

Also , I will suggest that is English might not be accurate due to it not beeing is first language.

Quote :

"The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2."

I think he meant to say that since the Linux kernel whas released under the GPL it as always been GPL V2.
Some of us are old and accurate enough to remember that Linux whas released under another license prior to the GPL.

Quote :

"I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available"


I dont get the above point or where he draws his conclusion from , private signing keys are never mentionned once in all the addition and modification to the GPL license for Version 3. I seriously dont see why this would be a requirement at all or where he come up with this. But then again he never really joined the discussion where it mather and explained where he draw this point from , or what he like and dont like and why in GPL v3.

Now , I am sorry to say this about Linus and his great work and about is relevance but most people dont get the Linux Kernel from Kernel.org , the developpers do , but most people get them from the GNU/Linux distribution and they all release there kernel version under GPL v.2+ and probably will move to GPL v3+ , because there lawyer teams will advise them to do so.

The GPL v3 is not made this way for fun , they are trying to prevent that GNU/Linux and the Linux kernel be stopped in its track by legal problems. The aim of the GPL v3 is not to add restriction or more requirement , or to be a traitor license that allow people to close the code to all , its exactly the opposite , its to keep the protection you enjoy currently today in the V2 version accurate in todays changing world and that you can still build software for everyone and that no one can steal or use new law to take over the protection and rights that are protected and clearly given to all by the GPL.

Linus Thorvalds might be a god where as software kernel programming is concerned , but he clearly dont see or understand the validity and accuracy of law and its repercussion for everyone else and himself.

I hope that Linus like to go to court as people who will take advantage of the flaws in V2 to appropriate and close there Linux Kernel version to everyone else under those new laws will certainly be calling upon him to defend there view. Because we all know that people closing code are doing this for the greater good of everyone and man kind and even more in Linus Thorvalds name.

My take is Linus will eventually go GPL V3 in time , someone with sense will get tru to him , he will ask for modification he dont like to be changed or modified in the GPL V3 or he will just get fed up to go sit in court or even jail every 2 weeks , if he dont get to write code from Jail due to a stupid judge.

- Laws are like computer device and parts , there is always someone trying to change them and if you dont keep up with them they eventually come back to stop you from doing what you previously enjoyed doing because now its no longuer permited or compatible.

Reply Score: 2

Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"First of all , I dont see who advised Linus on this"

My take on the situation:
Linus is a programmer. He doesn't appear highly interesting the politics of software.

Just because Stallman decides the license needs an update, doesn't mean Linus needs to pay a god damn bit of attention to him, or anyone else for that matter.

Reply Score: 3

Realistic Source control
by Bonus on Thu 26th Jan 2006 14:06 UTC
Bonus
Member since:
2005-12-23

Maybe he should go for another contract or combine something else. GNU is allot more liberal forcing you to recontribute changes. Maybe Linux doesn't need this now BUT it needs to stop the process of allowing movie companies to make movies with Linux that don't RUN on Linux. That's bad engineering. Linux is starting to become a bad image of itself.
GNU at least sets this precedant and my only concern is if the Open Source Initiative does not add some of these types of anti-patant anti-DRM rules as a contiigency soon. FSF is more liberal where OSI is more realistic. I have had allot of good experiences with OSI as far as realistic source control.
OSI might need to tighten their belt then maybe Linux will be forced to make more minor anti-DRM-patent changes.
Also it is my firm opinion the GNU 2 has only fueled Interent transparancy and actually fueled more DRM and patents so if they want to still exist these changes are vital and am surprised that Linus doesnt take this more seriously instead of dismissing it out of hand. If he doesn't like the GNU 3 then come up with your own contract.

Edited 2006-01-26 14:24

Reply Score: 1

What!?
by CrLf on Thu 26th Jan 2006 14:08 UTC
CrLf
Member since:
2006-01-03

"but most people get them from the GNU/Linux distribution and they all release there kernel version under GPL v.2+ and probably will move to GPL v3+ , because there lawyer teams will advise them to do so."

You do realise that that is completely wrong, don't you?

If a piece of code is explicitly under the GPLv2, it _cannot_ be relicensed under the GPLv3. The Linux kernel has code under multiple licenses, some of it is under a GPLv2-or-later license, some is under a GPLv2-only license and other parts are dual licensed (BSD/GPLv2+, ...). These licenses are all compatible, but that means that the kernel license as a whole cannot be changed without permission from everybody that has ever contributed to the parts that would require changing.

Besides... no distribution changes the licensing terms of any of its components. That notion is insane and completely wrong. Where did you get that from...?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Even if...
by jaboua on Thu 26th Jan 2006 14:40 UTC
jaboua
Member since:
2005-09-08

AFAIK, yes.

Reply Score: 1

Or put simply
by microshag on Thu 26th Jan 2006 14:45 UTC
microshag
Member since:
2005-11-30

Some of these developers spend too much time thinking about licenses and not enough about developing. All this hemming and hawing over difference in the licenses when they should be focused on improving the kernel.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Reality is Linus dont mather much
by jaboua on Thu 26th Jan 2006 14:50 UTC
jaboua
Member since:
2005-09-08

...care to explain why Torvalds is going to prison because he don't want to change license?

Reply Score: 1

line_eater
Member since:
2006-01-25

The Linux kernel is hunk of functional code that's had a lot invested in it. Still, there are other functional chunks of code which can and will be improved to do what the linux kernel does now.

The GPL really shaped the Linux project very strongly. Still, it's important to realize, the principles that Richard Stallman taps into with his legal code - the GPL - are at the heart of the matter. The Linux Kernel is an interchangeable part, the principles are not interchangeable.

Nevertheless, I respect Torvald's decision on this issue because it makes sense. I don't assume that re-licensing with GPL is neccessarily a good idea. Perhaps Stallman agrees with Torvald on this. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Torvalds isn't going to migrate to GPL3 because, among other things, its anti-IP provisions will limit penetration of the Linux kernel into places where IP is critical; ie. embedded devices, set top boxes, etc. Not to mention the fact that he would have needed to get everyone who submitted code to the kernel to agree to the license migration. Talk about a pain in the arse.

Reply Score: 1

explain please
by gplCop318 on Thu 26th Jan 2006 20:25 UTC
gplCop318
Member since:
2006-01-10

would linus allow a v3 fork?

Reply Score: 1

RE: explain please
by sigzero on Fri 27th Jan 2006 01:08 UTC in reply to "explain please"
sigzero Member since:
2006-01-03

Hello!? Are you daft? There cannot be a v3 fork. You would still have to get every damn programmer who ever committed code to the kernel to agree to that. Good luck.

Reply Score: 1

Conflict
by flanque on Thu 26th Jan 2006 21:49 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

It seems to me that the GPL2 vs GPL3 debate is going to divide the Linux community in some way.

Reply Score: 1

Hello!
by Smartpatrol on Thu 26th Jan 2006 23:23 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

Revisions of the GPL is all about control. Linux has single handedly brought FOSS and GNU to the limelight. RMS seeks to control the direction FOSS and ultimately Linux and everything under the GPL umbrella. Remember he is the first person to correct people that use the term Linux loosely as a complete OS rather then saying GNU/Linux.

Reply Score: 1

hmm
by viator on Fri 27th Jan 2006 00:34 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

And V3 doesnt allow for drm oooooh now its all clear.

Reply Score: 1

ok then
by gplCop318 on Fri 27th Jan 2006 05:42 UTC
gplCop318
Member since:
2006-01-10

Well if linux can state unequivically that there will be NO v3 then cant he also speak for everyone to say there will be a v3? Does he speak for all or not?

What if the vast majority want to move to v3 will he "overide" that?

I guess gnu hurd mach is the new OS of choice! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: ok then
by sigzero on Fri 27th Jan 2006 12:53 UTC in reply to "ok then"
sigzero Member since:
2006-01-03

Realistically yes. Unless you want to replace eveything Linus has ever committed to the kernel. No? I thought not. To get the kernel to v3 (which there is zero reason to do anyway) you have to do 1 of 2 things:

#1 Get everyone still living to agree to it.

#2 Re-write everything that those against moving to the v3 version committed to the kernel.

I see neither of those happening.

Then you have the politics aspect of going against Linus the kernel guy himself. Oi! I don't see that happening with any kind of success what-so-ever.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ok then
by gplCop318 on Fri 27th Jan 2006 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE: ok then"
gplCop318 Member since:
2006-01-10

No I just want to ask linus to agree to a v3 fork. Ask everyone living to agree to a v3 fork. Then everyone is happy... no?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ok then
by Wrawrat on Fri 27th Jan 2006 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ok then"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

First of all, it's impossible to get a perfect consensus without any form of compromise. Unless the FSF and the Linux developers are open at making some, it won't happen. There is the option of rewriting GPLv2 code, but this would be counter-productive. It would probably hinder the momentum that Linux got. Given that the GNU OS is usually combined with the Linux kernel, it might have an impact on their goals.

People should just live with the fact that Linux is not GNU. It's not like GPLv2 is completely useless, either. If you cannot accept this, just use the alternatives...

Sometimes, I wish Linus & co started the development or the porting of another userland to prove their kernel is not "just another dumb piece in the puzzle that is easily replacable".

Reply Score: 1

RE: ok then
by rbenchley on Fri 27th Jan 2006 15:33 UTC in reply to "ok then"
rbenchley Member since:
2005-11-03

I guess gnu hurd mach is the new OS of choice! ;)

The problem there is that the Hurd development team is transitioning from Mach to the L4 microkernal, and apparently there is some talk that L4 is the wrong choice and they might transition to a new microkernal.

Reply Score: 1