The article goes on to paint a doomsday scenario about how there will be an older version and a newer version of Linux floating around, and how such a division will split and ultimately weaken the Linux operating system.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
All of these Linux and GPL3 articles are entirely irrelevant. Several programmers contributed code to the Linux kernel under the 2.0-only version of the GPL, and then left to move onto other projects, or in some tragic cases died.
As they never assigned copyrights to anyone, and since Linux had for years a very informal code-tracing and version control mechanism, it is impossible to relicence Linux under any under licence. Re-writing portions of it is not an option, as no-one knows how much needs to be written.
So all this Linux/GPL3 stuff is totally redundant hot-air.
As for GPLv3, the core idea of the GPL was that code could be shared and re-used anywhere. Patents can allow people to share code while prohibiting it being re-used in other projects and thus they are forbidden. DRM (particularly in an America under the yoke of the DMCA), can be used to allow people to share code, while prohibiting its reuse in other projects, and thus it is forbidden.
These loopholes currently allow people to use GPLv2 code in their own projects, and prevent the original authors of that code using their improvements. This is entirely against the philosophy of the FSF, GPLv1 and GPLv2, which is why it is being addressed in GPLv3.
RMS is not a zealot, and Linux is only tangentally related to this discussion. The real problem with GPLv3 is the amount of people talking out of their asses without ever stopping to think or even do some basic research. The license itself is actually pretty decent, provided that you understand it places long-term freedom above short-term convenience.
Edited 2006-10-14 21:39
Member since:2005-10-02
Important part #1:
As for GPLv3, the core idea of the GPL was that code could be shared and re-used anywhere.
Important part #2:
Patents can allow people to share code while prohibiting it being re-used in other projects and thus they are forbidden.
Important part #3:
DRM (particularly in an America under the yoke of the DMCA), can be used to allow people to share code, while prohibiting its reuse in other projects, and thus it is forbidden.
Important part #4:
The license itself is actually pretty decent, provided that you understand it places long-term freedom above short-term convenience.
Nice to see some common sense around here.
Member since:2005-08-17
Member since:
2005-11-05
A couple of questions to ponder.
First, would be FSF and its followers be prepared to compromise their principles in order to ensure the greater success of Linux and open-source software generally?
Second, Linux long ago ceased to be a community effort made up exclusively of individuals. The reality today is that corporates and institutions provide huge and arguably decisive support to Linux by way of R&D, grants, jobs and all the rest. Is it really wise of the FSF and others to cast so much of the GPL debate as individuals coding for open source vs big bad business?
No right or wrong answers. I'll just note that this is debate is as much about the capacity of FSF and its followers to grasp reality as it is about the GPL.
Member since:2005-07-15
>First, would be FSF and its followers be prepared to compromise their principles in order to ensure the greater success of Linux and open-source software generally?
Short: No, because our goal is freedom and not popularity of some piece of software.
Long: The same question arisen as GPLv1 and copyleft was invented. People said "Oh, but we must be nice to companies and if we don't allow them to abuse our work in proprietary software they will not support us and we will fail". History has proven that this assumption was wrong. Copyleft software is a great success and companies support it.
Now look at the GPLv3 debate. Single people say that we should care more about companies than about freedom. But what does the companies saying? I haven't heard any of them saying that they will leave Free Software if it is licensed unter GPLv3.
- Simon Phipps from sun seems to be happy with the progress of GPLv3 (http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/gpl_v3_progress)
- The last statement from HP i have heard was that they are happy with the progress and just want some clearer wording in the patent section. And they are confident that the next draft will achieve this goal.
- Dietmar Tallroth of Nokia is happy with the GPLv3 progress and said that unless there were major surprises, Nokia will be going with GPLv3. (https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/piracy_redefined_...)
So for me it seems like some people seeing more problems than really exists. Or as Georg Greve says (link above): "It would be an odd item in the history of Free Software if major companies like Nokia have end up having no problems with GPLv3, but the Linux kernel refuses to use it for what is a percieved lack of friendliness with the commercial world."
Edited 2006-10-14 22:28
Member since:2005-07-13
The same question arisen as GPLv1 and copyleft was invented. People said "Oh, but we must be nice to companies and if we don't allow them to abuse our work in proprietary software they will not support us and we will fail". History has proven that this assumption was wrong. Copyleft software is a great success and companies support it.
History has proven that this assumption was correct, hence the creation of the LGPL, without which GNU would be nowhere. Why is it wrong for Tivo to lock a linux kernel to a hardware platform they provide at a subsidized price while Gnome, the official desktop of GNU/Linux, can jump up and down about the ability for proprietary vendors to produce closed and locked software utilizing free software with absolutely no return back to the community that developed it as an advantage over Qt which enforces GPL? What happened to "freedom"?
Now look at the GPLv3 debate. Single people say that we should care more about companies than about freedom. But what does the companies saying? I haven't heard any of them saying that they will leave Free Software if it is licensed unter GPLv3.
- Simon Phipps from sun seems to be happy with the progress of GPLv3 (http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/gpl_v3_progress)
Yes, Sun's endorsement in GPLv3 is vital, since they have no ulterior motives. Heaven forbid the linux community should get split.
he last statement from HP i have heard was that they are happy with the progress and just want some clearer wording in the patent section. And they are confident that the next draft will achieve this goal.
We'll wait to hear their final judgement, but at least they've had the cajones to take a stand as opposed to certain other Big Blue contributors to the kernel that have cowered in the corner waiting for the dust to settle, so I'll give them credit for that.
Dietmar Tallroth of Nokia is happy with the GPLv3 progress and said that unless there were major surprises, Nokia will be going with GPLv3. (https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/piracy_redefined_.....)
What does Nokia care? They know the kernel will stay v2, so they can continue to lock it to their platforms while being v3 friendly in userspace?
Principles are fine and all, but v3 is nothing but an attempt to leverage Linux's success to advance an agenda. How about all the v2 proponents stick to linux, and the v3 proponents start working on Hurd, and we'll see where everyone winds up same time next year.
Member since:2006-10-09
Answer to question one: No. It's about Free software. GNU/Linux, for a lot of us, happens to be that Free software. The day Linux stops being Free, I'm moving to BSD. And "open source" software won't be a success if it's not Free. It'll be just another thing on your PC you can't study, change, or share. In short, a failure.
Response to question two: GNU/Linux was written by users, for users who wanted their software to be Free, long before any corporation started shelling out money. And if all the money dried up, and the companies went away? My software would still be Free. We wouldn't be able to develop as quickly, or have as much hardware to play with, or as much time to do it with. But my software would still be Free.
Answer to question two: Yes, it is wise. The FSF is all about software users and their freedoms. Here it is straight from the horse's mouth ( http://fsf.org ) "The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant." First up, freedoms. Next up, promotion and use. Not the other way around.
And "grasp reality"? Reality is, GNU/Linux will be as strong or as weak as we make it. The GPL makes sure that no big business, no corporate fear-mongerer, or runaway lawyer can change that.
Member since:2006-07-28
First, would be FSF and its followers be prepared to compromise their principles in order to ensure the greater success of Linux and open-source software generally?
You have to understand, the FSF has nothing to do with open source. It's a completely different ideology. The only thing that would happen is that Google, IBM, and everybody else decides GPL v3 is crap and forks all the GNU userland crap or just forks GCC and ports the BSD userland to Linux. In fact, there's Gentoo ports that have done just that.
The FSF can choose to further isolate itself or not. But at the end of the day, whatever it does is irrelevant to open source.
Member since:
2005-06-30
For those of you wanting more info on the specifics of GPLv3 I recommend the following link:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060118155841115
It is a diff of the 2 licenses provided by Groklaw.
And as always, you can check the GPLv3 version of the Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3
The latest draft of GPLv3 can be found at: http://gplv3.fsf.org
I encourage you to form your own opinions on the changes.
Member since:
2006-07-28
That's all it is, because anybody with a couple neurons knows that for all practical purposes the Linux kernel can't change to GPL v3 or any other license. And it doesn't matter what Stallman or Torvalds or anybody has to say about it.
Why these people, whose apparent entire lives revolves around Linux, can't grasp these simple concepts is beyond me.
When Stallman says "I would hope the linux developers would switch to GPL v3, but it's up to them", he knows that will never happen because it can't, but I'm sure he would be happy for things to be as disruptive as possible in order to satisfy his political agenda.
Member since:
2006-06-01
There is nothing "free" about the GPL.
The GPL is viral. It is about entanglements.
One of the dictionary definitions for "free" is:
exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
Software licensed under the GPL is NOT exempt from restriction. In fact the GPL is the MOST RESTRICTIVE of the comunity licenses.
Member since:2006-02-16
There is nothing "free" about the GPL.
The GPL is viral. It is about entanglements.
All copyright is viral. If I take any copyrighted work and create a derived work, the derived work is covered by the copyright on the original, regardless of the license the original work was under. The difference is that the GPL allows me the freedom to release such a work.
One of the dictionary definitions for "free" is:
exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
Software licensed under the GPL is NOT exempt from restriction. In fact the GPL is the MOST RESTRICTIVE of the comunity licenses.
That depends on what freedom you value. If you value the freedom for some people to become obscenely rich at the expense of others then you will not like the GPL.
The paradox of freedom is that every freedom that people have incurs a corresponding restriction on others. The freedom to life incurs the restriction not to kill. The freedom to physical movement incurs the restriction not to physically restrain. In this sense, the GPL is full of restrictions. But then, in this sense the 'Free World' is full of restrictions.
Member since:2006-09-24
"All copyright is viral. If I take any copyrighted work and create a derived work, the derived work is covered by the copyright on the original, regardless of the license the original work was under. The difference is that the GPL allows me the freedom to release such a work."
That's not even close to true. If I take a piece of BSD licensed code and create a series of patches for it, I can license them any way I want to whether it be BSDL, GPL, or commercial. If I do the same with a piece of GPL'd code I HAVE to license my code under the GPL. That is where the viral part comes in. Not all copyright is viral.
Member since:2006-01-02
Since the definition of a derived work is pretty broad in the respective law. For example, a work based on another work is considered derivative. So if you write a program using characters from Harry Potter (a game, for example), with their recognizable features, you're deriving from Rowling's work, and she has a say in what you can do with the resulting work. Harry Potter is not
licensed under the GPL, so the 'virality' of Rowling's copyrights has nothing to do with the GPL.[1]
Copyright law grants the original author exclusive rights, that she gets to keep through all modifications of the work. If the author does not like what you're doing with their work, they can prohibit you from distributing the result, like some right holders have done with music mashups, like the 'Dean Gray' album.
The main difference between BSD and GPL is that they use the 'virality' (i.e. exclusive grant of certain rights to the original author stretching over to derived works) embedded in copyright law for different goals: BSD to force you to propagate the original author's copyright notice, GPL to force you to propagate the GPL.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Lawsuits
Edited 2006-10-15 13:28
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
It makes perfect sense if you understand the GPL and BSD licenses.
Like I said Cisco and Microsoft have gotten rich, both using BSD software (Cisco in their IOS and Microsoft in Windows)
And did the BSD developers get ANYTHING out of that? NOPE, not even access to improvements made to their own code!
Member since:2006-06-01
Like I said Cisco and Microsoft have gotten rich, both using BSD software (Cisco in their IOS and Microsoft in Windows)
Hating large companies doesn't prove the GPL is about "freedom". The GPL is about coercion.
The BSD license is about the fredom of anyone to use the code ... whether it is large companies or one person.
I don't care whether you prefer the GPL license to the BSD license. Just stop claiming the GPL is about "freedom".
Member since:2005-06-30
So what? I'm sure they wouldn't mind having money or their improvements back, but they are not asking for them.
I believe works under the BSD licence are gifts. With a few exceptions, people can use them how they want, when they want, for what they want. They are really free. Perhaps a better word could be charity, since it's essentially what it is: gifts with no strings attached.
The GPL wants to assure the freedom of a work and its lineage. That's okay; I understand the philosophy and the reasoning behind this. However, we are humans, not software (hopefully!). In reality, the GPL is imposing restrictions upon our freedoms. Now, I respect the FSF. I believe GNU is a wonderful project and the GPL is a great licence. Still, it's not exactly what I call freedom for us. Another word should be used/created.
Improved formatting, fixed typos
Edited 2006-10-15 03:45
Member since:2006-02-16
"If you value the freedom for some people to become obscenely rich at the expense of others then you will not like the GPL."
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
Let me spell it out for you.
Rules, such as those in laws and licenses, or games, create an environment within which people have certain freedoms, and certain restrictions disallowing them to impinge upon the freedoms of others. Every freedom that one person has is achieved by placing a restriction upon others.
People consider themselves more free when they have the freedoms that they personally value. If I highly value the freedom to hold loud night parties on my property, I will have different ideas to someone who highly values the freedom to enjoy undisturbed sleep on their property. If I highly value the freedom to have sex with minors, I will have different ideas to someone who highly values the freedom for minors to be unaccosted by crusty cradle-snatchers.
The game Monopoly is an instructive example of what kinds of freedom are given by one set of rules. Anyone who has played Monopoly more than a couple of times will notice a pattern. The more property a player accumulates, the more money they can seize from others, and the more property they can further accumulate. There inevitably comes a point in the game where one player has enough leverage to seize whatever the other players have left, regardless of what the other players do.
The GPL, on the other hand, is a set of rules which does not to make a few people obscenely rich at the expense of others. Hence, if you value the freedom for some people to become obscenely rich at the expense of others then you will not like the GPL.
Member since:2005-10-02
There we go again.
There are two kinds of freedom.
1) The freedom as in "you can do everything, including taking the freedom away from other persons" -> that would be the anarchistic freedom (which is good).
2) The freedom as in "you can do everything, except limiting the freedom of other persons". This is the democratic version of freedom. A true libertarian solution.
GPL is the latter, while BSD and MIT are examples of the first kind of freedom.
None is better than the other, and none is worse than the other.
MPL, CPL, IPL are all much more restrictive than GPL. So no, GPL is not the most restrictive license around.
Member since:
2006-03-31
Did anyone find distaste with the author's general outlook on the whole debate?
"...Why the mainstream media is so insistent in creating a crisis around the licensing debate going on in the open source community."
When I read the buzzword "mainstream media" I became very skeptical of whatever point the author is making. This IS NOT silly American "politics" (I use the word politics loosely here) where there are constant, mindless diatribes of liberals versus conservatives and media pundits constantly complain of the "mainstream media" and "liberal bias." This is the free software movement, where every individual, developer or user, has her own opinion. Opinions are VERY diverse. Our diversity in opinions is our strength. Opinions are openly discussed and debated. This is called democracy.
Even on a superficial level, what would the "mainstream media" of the free software movement consist of? The author doesn't mention what constitutes this hypothetical boogey-man, the "mainstream media."
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2006-03-31
Member since:2005-07-06
Well I'm not the original author and I won't claim to have read all the OSS license. Howver I think it's pretty obvious that the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD, MIT, LGPL and MPL, which are the big ones. In fact the whole point of the above licenses is to be less restrictive than the GPL. Although I don't doubt there exists a more restrictive open source license than the GPL, I've yet to run across a project that uses one.
Member since:2006-06-01
If you're going to assert a strong claim like the "GPL is the MOST RESTRICTIVE of the comunity [sic] licenses," please provide some examples or proof to back up your opinion.
http://www.airs.com/ian/essays/licensing/licensing.html
"the GPL is among the most restrictive of open source licenses."
----------------
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/evanx/archive/2006/05/cddling_up_with_...
"GPL is the most restrictive license, and BSD the least, with the CDDL sitting inbetween. The CDDL is less restrictive than GPL (it allows "free use" of derived works) but is more restrictive than BSD/ASL licenses (it is copyleft with respect to modifications)."
"In this case, (re)licensing your software means you are placing it into a "public commons" where everyone can play nicely with it. According to the license of that particular commons of course. And here's the difference...
In the BSD commons, you don't have to contribute your modifications or your derived works back into the commons.
In the MPL commons, you have to contribute only your modifications back into the commons.
In the GPL commons, you have to contribute both your modifications and your derived works back into the commons. "
-----------
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/LICENSES/theory.html
"These extra requirements actually make the GPL more restrictive than any of the other commonly-used licenses."
Edited 2006-10-15 00:58
Member since:2005-11-10
The big difference between GPL and BSD is that it's harder to be used when you make software using the GPL.
For years the guys working on BSD made great software while companies like Cisco and Microsoft (Among others)have made BILLIONS using BSD code while the BSD developers made NOTHING.
At least with the GPL companies like Red Hat may make billions but I can still use CentOS for free and make money also, as can the developers. And if you don't make money at least you have access to your code, changes and all.
I guess it all depends on what you call free.
The fact that you are free to do whatever you want with someone else's hard work.
The fact that you can't hold the hard work hostage and its free for everyone!
Me myself I don't have a problem with people attaching non free software to GPL software as long as you don't add to or take away from the GPL software. Which is what I think Linus feels also.
Member since:2006-07-15
They can steal your nice GPL code and they do it. Furthermore you can nothing do about it, some small victories against a giant unknown mess in terms of stolen GPL code. Nice world :-)
>For years the guys working on BSD made great software >while companies like Cisco and Microsoft (Among >others)have made BILLIONS using BSD code while the BSD >developers made NOTHING.
Nice, it's true, but BSD developers are not driven by envy. GPL too doesn't give back any code to BSD, they can use BSD code and mangle it with GPL, in the end it's a one way ticket. "Freedom" in terms of the FSF.
Yes Linus likes the GPL *2*, but he doesn't like any religious tendencies or moral aspects in a licencse.
Member since:2005-10-02
It's true that GPL'ed sources cannot be used with BSD, but that is irrelevant since it's possible to freely use, modify and distribute GPL'ed sources.
It doesn't matter if it cannot be used in BSD-projects. Just move the project from BSD to GPL. Anyway, by releasing it under the BSD you lose any moral and legal right to complain about not getting anything back (apart from credit).
Member since:2005-06-30
If I release the source code for an application to you, the most freedom I could give you would be to let you do what ever you want with it.
If I spit out a list of things you can't use it for, and mandate that you make your changes available, etc. etc. I suppose a person not looking at "the big picture" could reasonably interpret the situation as "less freedom".
Lets look at the definition of Freedom from answers.com:
"1. The condition of being free of restraints."
Member since:
2006-01-14
The worst part about this is that the GPLv3 is being used as a political tool. RMS is trying to wage war to push patent reform and fight DRM. First off, patents on software is bad. All adding this clause to the GPL does is enforce an already bad idea. We should be pushing for patent reform, not changing the GPL to work around the problem. As for DRM, that is really a hardware thing and something that can't be won. Software is always secondary to the hardware we run it on. THink: Do we write drivers and then build cards to conform to them, or do we build cards and then write the drivers?
Here is the real problem which this article is alluding to. Since the kernel has to stay at GPLv2, what happens when you throw in GPLv3 software. Cause you know some people will follow RMS even if its right over a cliff. This could seriously lead to major problem in the Linux community.
Member since:2006-07-28
Here is the real problem which this article is alluding to. Since the kernel has to stay at GPLv2, what happens when you throw in GPLv3 software. Cause you know some people will follow RMS even if its right over a cliff. This could seriously lead to major problem in the Linux community.
The number of people that will follow RMS over the cliff is completely insignificant. It's a blip that will barely even be noticed by open source. Ten years ago it might have meant something, but not anymore since the grownups got into the game.
Member since:2006-01-24
no, restrictive DRM is against the the idea that FSF and GPL is based upon. that is why GPLv3 is a necessity. perhaps if you read up on why FSF was started you'd understand why it can't accept restrictive DRM (hint, it had to do with a printer driver).
Linus on the other hand, is now driving Linux as a commercial venture. for him and the companies he is serving, not being able to use restrictive DRM closes some possible business venues. and this is likely why he makes a racket. as the article points out, he is not forced to upgrade Linux to GPLv3. people submitting patches however, have the right to decide what licence they want to place it under. however, if Linus is to be believed, all the main kernel developers (again, all being payed full-time by companies to develop Linux) are all firmly against GPLv3, so what is he afraid of?
it's a licence which contributors themselves decide upon using or not. if the Linux developers have nothing against restrictive DRM, no patches will use the licence. if they do however, they now have a way of making sure their contributions won't be used in projects using restrictive DRM.
Member since:
2005-07-12
My grandfather used to have a saying about the media: "Whenever you see news on TV or read the paper about anything you are involved in or are knowledgable about, they get every single fact, figure and detail wrong, twisting it to sell papers or push their own agenda. If you cannot trust them to cover things you know about, how can you possibly trust them for things you don't?"
Forbes has always had that in spades whenever technical subjects come up.
One thing to remember about reporters in general - they rarely if ever know ANYTHING about what they are reporting on, majoring in writing does nothing to get them knowledge of anything else, so they usually take the word of the first person who opens their mouth in a way they like and runs with it as the gospel.
Edited 2006-10-15 06:26
Member since:
2005-07-06
Dan Lyons:
I can't help but think you've made them on purpose. Nobody is worried about someone forking the kernel. The fear involves the forking of other parts, the parts that go to GPLv3, including the parts for which FSF controls copyrights.
Despite what you say, others believe that it is still not clear that a distributor can mix v2 and v3 code. (These include lawyers at OSDL and HP, who are participating in the GPLv3 committees.)
This uncertainty about mixing v2 and v3 code is one issue that OSDL has been raising. If a distributor can't mix GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code, what are they to do when key pieces go to v3? Sure, they can stick with v2 versions, but they won't have access to future development that takes place under v3. So they'll have to do that themselves. And it's not clear they have the manpower to do that. Even if they do, others will be developing versions under v3, and they won't be compatible. Is this really so hard to understand?
Another scenario: Even if v2 and v3 code can be mixed, a commercial distributor may not want to touch v3 code because it considers terms of the GPLv3 too onerous. Again, in that case that distributor can keep shipping the old v2 versions, but to develop new features the distributor would have to fork the elements of the OS that FSF has moved to GPLv3 (for example, gcc, glibc, binutils, etc.)
I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Isn't this a Linux publication? Did you read the statement paper from the kernel developers? Have you talked to any of those guys? I can't help but think you're being willfuly ignorant in pretending to think my article was talking about the Linux kernel forking.
Stallman's camp isn't going to fork the Linux kernel. If anything, they would probably do a build using Hurd in place of Linux. I'm sure you've seen that mentioned. You remember Hurd, right? It's the kernel they were trying to make work when Torvalds came along.
For another thing: You and others keep raising the point that the change is "vo-lun-tar-ee" as if the world doesn't understand that or as if my article claimed otherwise. We all know it's voluntary. But GPLv3, as drafted today, would impose on companies that adopted it some arguably onerous terms. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads and making them use it. But what they are doing is saying, There are key parts of GNU-Linux that you need and which now are moving to GPLv3. If you want to stay with past versions under GPLv2, that's fine, but the future versions from us are going to be under GPLv3. So if you want to use those, you'll need to abide by the terms of GPLv3. Or you can just take over development of future features in all those pieces on on your own.
We know that FSF is going to take key pieces of GNU-Linux and move them to GPLv3. (In case you don't know that, let me put your mind at ease -- rms told me so himself months ago.)
The question is how onerous will the terms of GPLv3 be. If rms removes certain rules the commercial guys might not have a problem using GPLv3 code. If rms keep in language that makes GPLv3 too onerous for commercial distributors, this could in effect force those companies to take over development of forked versions of those pieces.
I'm not making this up. I've discussed it with Linus, Bottomley, Greg K-H, OSDL's CEO, OSDL's chief legal counsel, IP counsel for HP, head of open source at HP, IP counsel at Novell, and others who are participating in the GPLv3 committees. But sure, fire away. I'm sure it's fun to call some reporter an idiot. Thanks.
Brian Proffitt :
You don't seem to know what "mixing code" means. Yes, the FSF plans to shift GNU tools to GPL 3. But those tools are not part of the kernel. They are outside of the kernel, used to compile it or help it interface with other applications in some way. The licensing issue with the kernel only comes up if someone introduces a patch for the inside of the kernel that has a GPL 3 (or later) license.
No one is disputing that Stallman and the FSF will be upgrading their tools' license. But I think the magnitude of the problem is overstated in your column and in your statements here. Linux distributions are composed of hundreds of separate applications, with many different licenses attached. Most are GPL 2, but there are some notable exceptions: Apache has its Apache Public License and Firefox has the Mozilla Public License. Some Linux distributors even put closed source, proprietary code in their package sets, and these prop. apps run alongside the kernel and all the other GPL 2 applications just fine (though admittedly this tends to irk purist Linux users).
The new requirements for the GPL 3 only apply to the code that is under the GPL 3 license. If gcc, to use one of your examples, were under GPL 3, then I as a developer would not be able insert code into gcc's source code that had DRM characteristics. But the license does not prevent me from running a DRM application alongside gcc in a Linux distribution (if I were nutty enough to want to). I could even use gcc as a compilation tool to compile a DRM application. Said DRM application, however, would have to be licensed as something other than GPL 3, obviously.
None of the GPL licenses prevent a user from using whatever application they wish alongside a GPL'd application. Not even GPL 3. To do so would be an contradiction to the very core notion of software freedom. Sure, at the end of the day, we would all like to have free software, but the GPL never forces anyone to run only similarly-licensed software. How could it?
The only real problem comes along, as I mentioned in my article, if someone wants to try to introduce GPL 3 code into the source code of an existing application that is licensed as GPL 2 only. And then developers are going to have to hash it out.
As for your personal attacks, if that's what gets you through the day, Dan, then have at it. If I made errors in my article, then my readers--including the people you mentioned--will point it out to me, and I will listen and learn. Until that time, it doesn't change the fact that I believe your article is incorrect and exaggerates a licensing issue into an all out disaster. The very derisive tone of your article makes quite clear the disdain you have towards Linux and free software and its participants, so playing the objective card with me is hypocrisy at its finest.
Member since:
2005-07-30
Member since:
2006-03-31
