“We’ve been talking, meeting, and arguing over GPL 3 for nearly two years. Recently, the second draft of the long-awaited rewrite of the popular free-software license arrived. But Linus Torvalds wasn’t happy with the first draft, and nothing has been modified in the second draft to make him change his mind.”
Is GPL 3 Dead on Arrival?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’ve got a few questions for the better educated readers of this site:
If the GPL(3) dies on the vine or shortly thereafter, what happens to Linux and the FOSS world? Does Linus have to upgrade the GPL2 license that Linux (the kernel) is currently under to version 3 when it’s final?
Can GNU/Linux (Linux Kernel + Userland) live on together under two licenses? Can there exist a GNU/Linux with DRM? How about BSD/Linux? If they can’t is there going to be a major fork? Will people actually want to use a GNU/Linux distro that has DRM in it?
Has the age of Linux and Linux come to an end?
Here’s another fun one:
Will they finally make HURD a reality?
I wish the hurd would pick up pace and develop. I would gladly switch if the features were there. Why has hurd lagged so much. Is anyone planning a gplv3 kernel of some sort? Maybe this will be the push to get moving. Will linux and his attitude finally push people out of linux and into …..?
Maybe a fork of one of the BSDs with all the new code under the GPLv3?
Maybe a fork of one of the BSDs with all the new code under the GPLv3?
Why fork a complete BSD? All the fundamental userland infrastructure in a GNU/Linux Distro is already GNU software and also under the GPLv3 the moment it finalizes.
If anything, if Linus’ kernel becomes unworkable through his attitude, we only need another free kernel.
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is already in advanced development and the FreeBSD kernel can legally absorb GPLv3 patches.
Everybody seems to think that Linus singlehandedly controls all software that goes into a GNU/Linux Distribution, but Linus only delivers one tiny bit called the kernel, the rest is third party.
I was thinking more about the kernel…
The GNU userland under the GPLv3 would count as new code for it.
The GNU userland under the GPLv3 would count as new code for it.
The userland and kernel are two seperate entities since userland code generally isn’t a derived work.
GNU userland can also run on Windows, BSD and Solaris, among others, so it’s not limited to either linux or the GPL.
Can GNU/Linux (Linux Kernel + Userland) live on together under two licenses?
Yes
Can there exist a GNU/Linux with DRM?
Yes
How about BSD/Linux?
How about those Cubs?
If they can’t is there going to be a major fork?
they can
Will people actually want to use a GNU/Linux distro that has DRM in it?
yes
Has the age of Linux and Linux come to an end?
no
Here’s another fun one:
Will they finally make HURD a reality?
no
As many OSS programs are licensed only under GPL2, and there is no mandate to change to a later license nor will there be, most of the FOSS world would then just chug along with the GPL2 license.
The only way GPL3 would apply to a program is if in its license it explicitly says that you can use any later version of the license, which the Linux kernal and various other projects omit.
not DOA! The support of Torvalds or the lack thereof is not the end of the world. Why does everyone use him as the spokesperson on anything to do with linux? He rants and raves so much I do not care to read anything he writes. He seems to think he is the benevolent dictator and decision maker for all things linux. Once again, I wish for linux to split – I think it is time for a fork.
The reason people tend to like Torvalds is that he doesn’t especially care what other people think, and just pushes ahead with what he thinks is right, and doesn’t waste time mincing words when he thinks someone is wrong about something.
Running a project isn’t so much about writing pretty articles that make people happy, despite what you seem to think. It’s about technical correctness and a knowledge of the way the project works, as well as the ability to reject the opinions of morons and not letting them influence the project. and I’m personally confident in Linus’ ability to make these technical decisions, as well as steer the project effectively.
Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
But what does this have to do with the GPLv3? If linus was going to do all the work himself and make these technical decisions then he probably should not of wasted his effort on choosing the GPL.
a voluntary dictatorship, and I doubt Linux will EVER change to GPLv3, for one simple reason:
Linus removed the “v2 and up” clause, and therefore needs the approval of _ALL_ copyright holders to change to GPLv3, including the ones that dropped off the face of the internet and/or the families of the ones that died (out of thousands of contributors, there are probably a few) and all the others.
Even if Linus wanted to switch, the chance of him being able to contact all of them is… slim. and even if he could contact all of them, the chance of convincing each and every one of them is slimmer.
Linux, I think, is GPLv2 for eternity, or at least until everyone working on it dies and it becomes public domain. which is effectively eternity.
He seems to think he is the benevolent dictator and decision maker for all things linux.
Um, he is the benevolent dictator and decison maker for all things Linux.
He owns the name.
“Of course, a project coordinator cannot really be anything like a dictator in the sense that he or she ultimately cannot enforce a decision, since a project fork is always possible.”
“A dictator in this context has power only over the process, and that only for as long as he or she is trusted.”
“tongue-in-cheek title”
It just seems that in the past year or so linus has really ramped up the gpl bashing and so forth – or is it me?
It just seems that in the past year or so linus has really ramped up the gpl bashing and so forth – or is it me?
It’s you.
Linus has never gotten along with Richard on the politics of FOSS, and has always said so bluntly and plainly.
It’s just that now that the travesty of GPLv3 is unfolding, more people are paying attention to what Linus has to say, so his opinions are solicited more often and quoted more often.
But why choose the GPL in the first place if you didn’t think the entity responsible for it was on the right track? Should we continue using a license that is old, should the new GPL be basically the same as the old GPL? So much is changing, so many power plays and proprietary companies, so many partnerships, new devices, new methods – should we still be trying to use the same license? Shouldn’t v3 be as controversial as v2 was back in the day? Shouldn’t v3 try to be as forward looking as possible and try to cover what DRM will mean tommorrow, next month, next year? I wonder where we would be at without v2 and I wonder where we wil be without v3?
Linux likes GPL v2 quite a bit. He’s said so several times, and the “quid pro quo” nature of that license (ensuring that those who take from a GPL’d project must also give back) was one of the features that drove him to use that license.
There is no perfect “cookie-cutter” license that fits all cases. The GPL v2 will still be used by dozens of open source projects even after the introduction of GPL v3, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Licenses don’t suffer from bit-rot anymore than software does, and those older licenses might still be the best licenses in many cases. All GPL v3 provides is another alternative.
But why choose the GPL in the first place if you didn’t think the entity responsible for it was on the right track?
Because it was the closest license to what Linus wanted and he wasn’t interested in writing his own. Besides, he didn’t exactly choose the GPL, he choose to modify the GPL. He struck the “or later licenses” bits.
Should we continue using a license that is old, should the new GPL be basically the same as the old GPL?
There’s nothing wrong with GPLv2. It’s one of many possible licenses, and for people it suits, it’s still usable.
Shouldn’t v3 be as controversial as v2 was back in the day?
I don’t recall the GPL every being “controversial”. I do recall the FSF making a big deal out of it. It’s just one of dozens of ways to license software.
What I do recall being controversial back in the early days of the GPL was FSF’s demand that developers assign copyright of their code to the FSF. I think the current debate over v3 shows that Linus’ approach, while more cumbersome, is more respectful of the original developer.
Shouldn’t v3 try to be as forward looking as possible and try to cover what DRM will mean tommorrow, next month, next year?
No.
I wonder where we would be at without v2 and I wonder where we wil be without v3?
The GPL didn’t have as big an impact as people like to think it did. There have been free software developers since the dawn of the modern computer age. FORTRAN owes its early popularity to a freely available compiler, after all.
The GPL happened to coincide with the emergence of the internet. It is the internet, not the GPL which has made the modern explosion of widely available software what it is.
Even the talk about the GPL’s importance with respect to SCO is mistaken. The AT&T/UCB case had far more importance to that, and it didn’t involve any free software licenses.
Even the talk about the GPL’s importance with respect to SCO is mistaken. The AT&T/UCB case had far more importance to that, and it didn’t involve any free software licenses.
Strange, this is the first time I hear that the BSDL is not a free software license.
I always knew it was not a copyleft license, but I was convinced that the license was free.
Even the talk about the GPL’s importance with respect to SCO is mistaken. The AT&T/UCB case had far more importance to that, and it didn’t involve any free software licenses.
Strange, this is the first time I hear that the BSDL is not a free software license.
I always knew it was not a copyleft license, but I was convinced that the license was free.
You’re confusing the BSDL with the AT&T/UCB case. They’re not the same thing.
“he choose to modify the GPL. He struck the “or later licenses” bits.”
The “or later” isn’t part of the GPL. It is part of the boilerplate text you use to say what’s the license the software you write is under.
I can understand (and agree) why Linus removed that bit… because he had read the GPL(v2), found that its terms were reasonable and to his liking, and didn’t want anyone else coming along and modifying them without his consent.
Code belongs to whoever wrote it. The original developer defines the original licensing terms, that’s it. Others wishing to use the code have to follow the rules. The BSD license says “you can do anything, I don’t care”, the GPL says “It’s my code, I say everybody is free to use it, and nobody can or do say otherwise.”
This all “freedom for users”, or “the software wants to be free” is utter BULLSHIT! Users didn’t spend time coding, or debugging, or just thinking about the damn thing.
not DOA! The support of Torvalds or the lack thereof is not the end of the world. Why does everyone use him as the spokesperson on anything to do with linux? He rants and raves so much I do not care to read anything he writes. He seems to think he is the benevolent dictator and decision maker for all things linux. Once again, I wish for linux to split – I think it is time for a fork.
I’ve not really read THAT much of Torvalds posts, however the ones that I have read show some one that is speaking their mind and stating what THEY will and will not do. At times he will state why he thinks others may want to follow suit, but there is a far cry between that, and some one dictating/mandating what others will and will not do.
If he chooses not to migrate the kernel to GPL3, then that’s really his choice.
Once again, I wish for linux to split – I think it is time for a fork.
As far as the license is concerned, it would not matter. The fork would also be licensed as GPL v2 and in order to change that license the same conditions would have to be met as changing it for the original branch: getting all the people whose contributions were ever accepted into the kernel agree to the switch.
The Linux license cannot be easily changed from GPL2 even if everybody wants to do it, let alone against an author’s wishes.
Linus doesn’t have that much to do with this, technically. True, his opinion carries a lot of weight and he owns the “Linux” trademark. Other than that, he’s just a Linux contributor among others. The fact he’s the original author means just that he’s allowed to take Linux as it was before anybody else contributed code to it and change the licensing on that version. Anybody interested in Linux version 0 sans the GPL2?
Oh, and people follow him because he has, so far, time and time again, proven himself able to point them in a sensible direction. Not because he’s an alien overlord ruling with an iron fist and laser for eyes.
Exactly. A fork, ask contributers that do not want v3 to allow a v3 split of their code, rewrite those parts that won’t allow a split and we go about on our merry way.
Strange that linus feels comfortable with proclaiming that the kernel will not be v3 since he is then speaking for so many. What if the XYZsubsystem guy wants a gplv3 version for his work. Will he have to keep two trees, one for v2 that goes into the kernel and one for v3 for future products wanting to use v3?
…I wish for linux to split – I think it is time for a fork.
Better get coding, then
Seriously, though – forking is not good for anybody, except Microsoft. It took the emergence of Linux to start bringing the Unixes back together as a (fairly) coherent body with real clout in the real world – until then MS could pick them off one by one and stamp on their bones, and did.
As regards the GPL3, I haven’t yet managed to get my head round the arguments in detail, but both sides have some good points – the problem is we can’t second-guess the future and its specific problems. Instinctually I veer towards Linus’ view, perhaps it’s a more European thing to be wary of mixing politics and technology – but I shall read the latest draft of V3 and think again. (And still not know the answer!)
Forking is not good – except when it is needed. In this case it may be bad but maybe some devs want a v3 kernel and this will be the only way to bring it about. Then those that only want v2 and the limited protection it provides are happy campers. And the guys that want v3 can have be happy campers. Forks arent good but this may be the time and place for one. We can call it RMX or should we say GNU/RMX?
I believe RMS did guess the future with v2, and I believe he is accurate with where we need to go now or else we will find that we are in a bind and way behind and willing to make a deal…
Forking is good for many people. It’s one of the reasons why specialized versions of the Linux kernel exist, and it sometimes provides useful parallel development.
Remember that GPL’d software is not proprietary software, and that the mainstream tree can always cherry-pick the best features from any fork (and vice versa).
Since there seems to be issues with the GPLv2 (patents,…?) since the GPLv3 is inacceptable.
Since I don’t want to spend days reading texts written by lawyers and for lawyers, but I still want to make sure my code stays free.
What license should someone like me choose ?
If you feel that way then you should probably write your own IMO.
I am no lawyer, anything I write myself will probably be worthless in court.
You could base it on the GPL just call it something else and remove what you don’t like or add in something you do.
GPLv2 doesn’t have issues.
The issue is that some how software managed to become both a product and a work. This is just plain silly.
Patent law doesn’t make sense when you apply it to a work and copyright doesn’t make sense when you apply it to a product.
Best solution is to remove patents on software, because they never should have been there in the first place.
Maybe you should consider the LGPL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
And what exact issues are you talking about (other than patents which aren’t covered properly in GPL2)?
Since there seems to be issues with the GPLv2 (patents,…?) since the GPLv3 is inacceptable.
Why is the GPLv3 inacceptable? Is it because Linus “Bitkeeper is OK for the kernel” Torvalds doesn’t like it? Or do you yourself have well founded objections to the current text?
To me, the current draft is a little more eleborate, but still very readable and it still protects the four freedoms. I see no problems with adopting the GPLv3.
Unless you want to do an endrun around the stipulations in the GPLv2 and lock your software behind an electronic DRM padlock. In that case the GPLv3 will be deadly to your master plan of World Domination.
I don’t have a “well founded” opinion myself. In addition, I am not a lawyer nor a native english speaker, reading lawyer stuff in english is close enough to impossible that I gave it up (though I read through LGPL and GPLv2 I can’t say I understood all that much).
However, there are enough people complaining about the implications of the GPLv3 and the shortcoming of the GPLv2 that I worry of their suitability. Considering the dozens of alternatives, considering only the OSI approved licenses, isn’t there a license there which is already a good enough compromise that we don’t need a new version of the GPL ?
JeanHelou, I’m not a native English speaker myself, nor am I a Lawyer. Still, taking the time to read the second draft, it becomes clear that the GPLv3 is a phenomenal update to a masterpiece. GPLv3 preserves the same freedoms as the GPLv2 protected and v3 also removes some external technical and political threats with very moderate language.
Don’t rely on the scaremongerers. I doubt if half of them actually read the draft themselves. I suspect they are just throwing around unfounded opinions to seem more intelligent than they are. What better way to look cool than to associate yourself with the opinion of Linus Torvalds; one of the FOSS Icons.
If you still feel uncomfortable with the DRM language, look into the CDDL authored by Sun Microsystems. The CDDL is virtually the same in spirit to the (L)GPLv2 and it contains much the same anti-patent language that is now also added to the GPLv3.
I still want to make sure my code stays free.
What license should someone like me choose ?
Depends on what you mean. If you mean that you want YOUR code to stay free, just make it public domain. Now if you wan’t to hinder evil (by any defintion you like) from benefitting from you work it’s another question. You just has to decide what evil to stop.
quote from Groklaw
“And what, pray tell, might the moral of this story be? To me, it’s that once again the GPL has proven itself to be the MVP of the SCO wars. I hope none of you ever forgets that someone had the foresight many years ago to plan for the SCO’s of this world. Richard Stallman was villified, sneered at, mocked and attacked for designing the GPL back then. But look at it now. Look quite seriously at what GPLv2 has accomplished. And when you do, please think about that legal foresight he demonstrated and then extrapolate. Are you quite sure GPLv3 isn’t also legal foresight? In any case, while you are all free to reach your own conclusions, there is one unchangeable, undeniable fact. There is some water under the legal bridge now, and it wasn’t superior technology that saved Linux from SCO. It was the GPL that played a major role in keeping this GNU/Linux boat afloat in the face of SCO’s attack.”
v3 for me…and you too
Well said.
I don’t remember RMS being villified for the GPL. For his stance regarding the complete elmiination of certain types of software, yes, but that’s a different issue.
Of course not. FSF will switch to it, which means that GNU will use it. Linus not using it in Linux has an impact but not enough to kill it.
“Of course not. FSF will switch to it, which means that GNU will use it. Linus not using it in Linux has an impact but not enough to kill it.”
How would this affect Linux actually? Linux is dependent on the GNU toolchain. Would the kernel be able to remain GPLv2 if the tools it requires are GPLv3? Honest question, I don’t have a clue.
How would this affect Linux actually? Linux is dependent on the GNU toolchain. Would the kernel be able to remain GPLv2 if the tools it requires are GPLv3? Honest question, I don’t have a clue.
It wouldn’t at all. Using the toolchain doesn’t require that code produced by the toolchain be covered under the same license — or the BSD guys would have ressurected the BSD toolchain instead of using the GNU one.
So yes, the kernel could remain under GPLv2.
“It wouldn’t at all. Using the toolchain doesn’t require that code produced by the toolchain be covered under the same license — or the BSD guys would have ressurected the BSD toolchain instead of using the GNU one.”
Great thanks. Appreciate the answer
I think what Linus does best is tell things as they are and go for simple solutions instead of pie in the sky dreams or ideologies.
What I as a coder want is just a plain simple license that protects me from lawyer a**holes trying to backstab me with laws and stuff that I have never heard of let alone understand.
Just wished laws were made with simplicity in mind *sigh*
GPLv3 DOA ?
Saying this is just stupid.
You only have to realise that, despite people mocking/disparaging RMS for wanting to call the Linux OS GNU/Linux, most Linux system just won’t work without GNU, and GNU is GPL, and GNU WILL move to GPLv3. You can doubt that if you want, that would just mean you don’t understand Free Software then.
And then, there are the huge number of GPL programs that say added the sentence saying the next GPL version will apply.
That’s why you see so much fear in people wanting to take advantage of FOSS, most of the core of most Linux OS will be GPLv3 *by default*.
So GPLv3 just can’t be dead on arrival.
That’s also why Linus is so vocal, but his advice is irrelevant and even counter-productive. That’s because Linus is not a lawyer, and without the excellent work of FSF and its followers, history has shown us that he would be toast as to the Linux trademark and the SCO case.
Eben Moglen is a lawyer and RMS has a direction. We need both of these to push FOSS forward, as history has shown again.
Again, a lot of FSF opponents must be young, as the myth of GPL killing itself with its restrictive clauses was worse in 1999.
All proved to be wrong, and the SCO case showed how ahead of everyone Moglen and RMS were, and how stupid the naysayers were, but some are still out saying their nonsense.
“Why does everyone use him as the spokesperson on anything to do with linux?”
Because it’s his creation?
“He seems to think he is the benevolent dictator and decision maker for all things linux.”
I’m guessing it’s because he is.
“Once again, I wish for linux to split – I think it is time for a fork.”
Talk is cheap.
…that they can’t say EXACTLY why DRM-type software is BAD in first place. All we have got in these times is rant that it is BAD for customers.
But let’s take a backpedal this time and look at the big picture. Copyrights are special legal statute, which gives work author to control copying of its work. If he/she wants to allow it flow freely in internet, he can release it such way (GPL,BSD), BUT if he/she/company wants to control work’s distribution trough DRM, they *can do that*. Actually, you are NOT forced to buy DRM hardware or software, are you? There are lot of indie artists with good quality recordings who will be delighted to take DRM-ed artist place.
I am all about free software and Linux. I don’t use commercial software in my everyday’s life, and my audio files mostly consists of waves, oggs and flac. And I maybe want to use iTunes music store to buy some music and listen to my Linux desktop. Yes, there is DRM, but I am not aware of it? Isn’t it MY decision to use it?
I understand Stallman, I understand FSF and I understand those who defend GPLv3, but I would say it simply – maybe DRM is bad, but it is not such way you will prove it. Use market forces, inform users. But don’t stick actual freedom restrictions to “freedom” license. It is just not worth that. This fight must be fought in different and, imho, more efficient way.
Get this subject pratical. Many compare this fight with events what happened when GPL was introduced to IT crowd first, but hell no – GPL is all about simplicity and technical – and therefore also real – freedom. Maybe let’s keep it that way.
About patents it is different matter.
As I see it DRM, like a patent has a special status under the law.
The problem that I forsee the FSF having with DRM has to do with how DRM can be used to lock not just media, like music, but anything. Software, networks, operating systems, devices can all be protected using DRM and yet still be “free?”
Effectively you could use DRM like technology to lock a device that uses free software. All they would need to provide is access to the source, which the user can compile but never actually use with the device.
DRM on music, movies or games is probably different from DRM on the rest of operating system. There is no doubt that a binary only (non-gpl) HD-DVD, BD, WMA movie player could be made that supports whatever DRM is used. Howevever it can’t be GPLv3, but then you are not locked into use only GPLv3 software.
If DRM was used on the kernel to prevent unsigned software from running or certain software doesn’t run on unsigned kernels then you move beyond the principles of free software and I think this is where the FSF wants to enforce more restrictions on DRM and signed software in GPLv3.
With the extra legal protections given to DRM, you can almost achieve the same results as with patents in GPLv2. Software where you have the source and all the accompanying rights under the GPL, except you can’t exercise them because of legal protections on the DRM.
That said I see Linus’s point too. DRM and TPM like technology is going to be very important in modern security. That sort of technology will probably need to be supported in the kernel. However the user should have the ability to create signed applications that still run with whatever restrictions the OS mandates. If the OS mandates software signed by the distributer then the user must be able to sign software themselves.
The GPLv3 probably needs to empower DRM for the user, but restrict DRM from being used to disempower the user. However not being a lawyer I don’t really understand the licence that well.
Edited 2006-08-04 11:04
However the user should have the ability to create signed applications that still run with whatever restrictions the OS mandates. If the OS mandates software signed by the distributer then the user must be able to sign software themselves.
The GPLv3 probably needs to empower DRM for the user, but restrict DRM from being used to disempower the user.
You’ve got it right. Surprise, Surprise, this is also what the DRM clause in the GPLv3-d2 says. That is why it mandates that signing keys are part of the corresponding source code, so users can still sign and run GPLv3 modifications.
>Use market forces, inform users.
I don’t think that the market can and should make all decisions.
> But don’t stick actual freedom restrictions to “freedom” license.
The GPLv3 doesn’t restrict freedom, it restricts power like GPLv2 does. You have to be careful that you don’t confuse power with freedom.
The GPLv2 says your are free to use the software, you are free to study and adapt the software, you are free to share the software and you are free to distribute modified versions but you don’t have the power to deny other people their freedom.
Exactly the same thing says the GPLv3. There is no limitation of freedom but limitation of power. Only the wording and some paragraphs has changed because technology and law has changed since GPLv2.
Edited 2006-08-04 10:41
The GPLv2 says your are free to use the software, you are free to study and adapt the software,
Exactly the same thing says the GPLv3. There is no limitation of freedom but limitation of power.
How, exactly, is limiting what adaptations I can make to the software not limiting freedom?
>How, exactly, is limiting what adaptations I can make to the software not limiting freedom?
You can make any adaptations.
But if you re-distribute the work you can’t use your power to deny other users the same freedom.
Their is no limitation of freedom, only limitation of power.
Edited 2006-08-05 00:14
But if you re-distribute the work you can’t use your power to deny other users the same freedom.
Their is no limitation of freedom, only limitation of power.
If my purpose is to make my software available on vendor X’s hardware-restricted DRMed system, and the only way I can do that is to allow vendor X to sign my binaries and install them on their hardware, I can, under GPLv2.
But I can’t, under GPLv3d2, because there exists a vendor upon whose hardware you can’t run a further modified version of my software, even though you can run that software on other vendor’s systems.
I’m not using any “power” to restrict any user from doing anything, in this scenario. But, my freedom to adapt the software to my purpose is now lost to me, because I’m willing to let vendor X sign my software on his hardware, but vendor X is not willing to let you sign your modified version.
>Actually, you are NOT forced to buy DRM hardware or software, are you?
I think this is really short-sighted. I have seen this poem at slashdot which fits this statement really well:
First they took our freedom in Tivos, and I did not speak out
because I would not buy a Tivo;
Then they took our freedom in XBox, and I did not speak out
because I was not a gamer;
Then they came for the MacIntels, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Apple Fanboy;
Then they came for the Appliances, and I did not speak out
because they either work better or I use “Open Source”;
Then they came for the PCs
and there was no one left to speak out for “Linux” users.
Maybe you have today the choice because you don’t need foo or bar. But if you don’t do anything about it now their will come the time were DRM Software and Hardware exists on places were you don’t have the choice any more.
For those who didn’t place the reference, it’s a paraphrase of a rather famous poem written (allegedly) by Martin Niemöller during WW2, regarding the Nazi rise to power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…#Poem
>DRM and TPM like technology is going to be very important in modern security.
I don’t thing DRM and TPM is important for modern security. Today we already have pretty good security with encryption and signing software.
Just look who is using DRM and who makes the most advertising for it? It’s the media industry that use it for music, Tivio-like devices, etc.
That’s what DRM is for. If you want to use DRM for your personal security infrastructure you can do this but than DRM is just another signing and encryption technology, technology you already had before DRM.
If you use DRM as “just another encrypting and signing technology” there is no problem with GPLv3. But if you use DRM with the intention of the developer and supporter of DRM, control what other people can do with their devices and data, than the GPLv3 will say “not with us”. And that’s perfectly within the spirit of the GPL, because the GPL is here to give everyone freedom and not to give few power.
But if you use DRM with the intention of the developer and supporter of DRM, control what other people can do with their devices and data, than the GPLv3 will say “not with us”. And that’s perfectly within the spirit of the GPL, because the GPL is here to give everyone freedom and not to give few power.
Exactly my point.
Basically GPLv3, as currently written, will cause problems with certain sorts of software. Presumably Linus thinks that the kernel will be one of them.
precisely why people are making such a fuss over whether the Linux kernel migrates to GPL v3?
Do they not get that it was probably never going to happen anyway? Did the restriction to GPL v2, that’s been there for as long as I can remember, slip their minds? Or perhaps they didn’t consider what would have to occur for a relicensing to take place as things stand?
Or am I perhaps living in some sort of alternate reality here?
DRM in GPLv3 has nothing to do with the data only the code. You can write software wich use DRM to control the use of your media file or somthing and still license the with GPLv3. The only thing you cant do is use DRM to restrict your code so that other cant modified your code and still use it.
Edited 2006-08-04 12:06
DRM in GPLv3 has nothing to do with the data only the code. You can write software wich use DRM to control the use of your media file or somthing and still license the with GPLv3. The only thing you cant do is use DRM to restrict your code so that other cant modified your code and still use it.
In theory this is true, but in practice, it turns out to not be. The DRM models for data that are most likely to be successful in the near future require using exactly the practices forbidden by the draft GPLv3 to lock down the OS as part of the DRM design.
You don’t have to do it that way, but that’s the way that’s most likely to become widespread.
he DRM models for data that are most likely to be successful in the near future require using exactly the practices forbidden by the draft GPLv3 to lock down the OS as part of the DRM design.
That must be why “Hollywood” is making such a ruckus. Free Software just said, we don’t need your stuff, pick up your ball and leave.
“Hollywood” needs the consumers, the consumers don’t need “Hollywood”.
>Basically GPLv3, as currently written, will cause problems with certain sorts of software. Presumably Linus thinks that the kernel will be one of them.
I don’t think that GPLv3, as currently written, will cause problems with certain sorts of software. It will cause problem with certain people and companies which want to deny users freedom. But this are no other “problems” like the “problems” created by GPLv2.
So i don’t have any problem with this “problem”.
Edited 2006-08-04 12:27
But back to the point the author was making. He seems to think that without the vast majority of GPLv2 software migrating to GPLv3 there will be problems.
The biggest problem being that GPL licensing won’t be so simple. It’ll be a little like BSD-style licensing where some is GPL compatible and some isn’t.
How badly will confusion around GPL affect the uptake of GPLv3? How bad will it be that the Linux Kernel, the darling of the FOSS movement, is not GPLv3?
Presumably it won’t matter for most software not relying on patents, certificates, DRM, etc. This would likely include most of the GNU suite.
I don’t think it’s a fatal blow for the current draft of GPLv3 that Linus won’t use it. Not unless people don’t migrate to GPLv3 solely because Linus doesn’t want to. That would become a flamefest of idolatry versus ideology. I hope that most of the coders behind the software are above that.
It’s possible that some GPLv2 software won’t become GPLv3 because of the clauses regarding patents.
Why do we care about Linus so much? He’s one person, and is currently only writing ~2% Linux kernel code. GNU/Linux could just as easily be GNU/BSD with a little work.
We don’t have to please Linus all the time, you know. After all, he supports DRM and the like.
Rumor has it, Linus will only eat green jelly beans, and they have to be shaped like penguins.
Perhaps it’s just that that 2 percent of the kernel is more essential than anyone in the FSF has done in years. GNU/Hurd has been talked about for years, but Linux is shipping and usable.
yeah I mean GNU only produces the entire toolchain that the kernel and the apps are built on… hardly anything really…
I can’t avoid to compare GPL extremist with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both try to make advocates by fear and not by information, if the software or format I need or I want does not exist in a GPLv3 OS then I won’t simple use it, is DRM taking away my freedom? I don’t think so, I have the choise to use it or not to use it, And if the a format doesn’t work like I want to I won’t lear ASM and C to adapt it to my needs, i’ll simple dump it and buy a new one, get real, users are not programers, 1 in 100,000 will maybe need to scratch the format, maybe less, and I won’t pay for the broken diches just because that one is not happy with a supossed restriction.
Don´t like DRM, fine I respect that but stop the FUD that DRM is a free ticket to slavery, is not.
This is false. DRM is directly taking away your freedom when it is used to lock out your ability to modify and run code.
The DRM sections of v3 are not about DRM in music etc they are about preventing companies removing the freedoms that are guaranteed in GPL by using techniques such as encryption keys for signing software and laws like the DMCA to stop people from circumventing these restrictions. Closing out these ‘exploits’ that allow companies to recind the rights otherwise protected by GPL is one of the aims of v3.
What do you or RMS know what my freedom is?
My freedom is to chose what I want to use or not, my freedom is use something that works, and won’t makes me waste my time with ideological trash, Do you think im interesting in scrash every format I use? decompiled? analised? of course not, I have better things to do and 99.9% of people do to, the license must adapt to the people not the people to de license.
Please use Microsoft or Apple products, because you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem.
Freedom is protected by those who accept the inconveniences, which inevitably cross your path when choosing freedom above all else. Consumers with a “my convenience first” complex will sooner cause freedom to be lost than won.
Freedom is protected by those who accept the inconveniences, which inevitably cross your path when choosing freedom above all else. Consumers with a “my convenience first” complex will sooner cause freedom to be lost than won.
The philosophical problem with the FSF stance with respect to “freedom” is that it completely ignores the social contract.
There are no absolute freedoms. With every freedom comes responsibility, the least of which is the responsibility not to abuse that freedom.
DRM enters this picture because it is human nature to abuse freedoms and human practice to police the abuses. Were there no theft there would be no copyright law, after all.
What do you or RMS know what my freedom is?
This isnt about your freedom as such, it’s about the freedoms of those who wish to have them (them being the four freedoms that the GPL seeks to protect). If these don’t interest you then this is nothing to do with you.
My freedom is to chose what I want to use or not
And I’m fairly sure no one from FSF has put a gun to your head and said ‘use GPL or else’
my freedom is use something that works, and won’t makes me waste my time with ideological trash[i]
The ‘ideological trash’ is what offers you and the rest of us some choice in this matter. The SCO trial is only one example of how this trash is protecting the work of many from being co-opted. And of course you are always free to use something else. Again, no one is making you subscribe to an idealogy you don’t want to.
[i]Do you think im interesting in scrash every format I use? decompiled? analised? of course not, I have better things to do and 99.9% of people do to, the license must adapt to the people not the people to de license.
Again no one says what you should be interested or how you spend your time, but then, who are you to tell the FSF what they should do with their license? There are other licenses out there. If you code and you don’t like GPL, release under something else. If you’re a user and don’t like GPL use products released under something else. You may not see the value in GPL and the FSF’s dedication to protecting the principals it stands for, but why should they stop doing what they’re doing because of you?
Well maybe they should stop using words like “Your freedom”, and change it to “The freedom of those who”, simple, stop talking as if like im involved, I certaintly not and I wont.
Edited 2006-08-04 17:50
Yea dude it is called XP – have at it. It works great with all that proprietary/DRM bunch of hoopla. Using proprietary is not a freedom, it is giving up of a freedom.
What exactly IS the PROBLEM with the GPLv2? It has served us well for years and doesn’t seem to be hampering the growth of FOSS in any way…
The GPLv2 is a reasonable license, most developers have a general understanding of what it does or doesn’t allow, and has already been proven in court. Version 3 is more than just quid pro quo “if you distribute changes to my code, you have to give your changes back” and becomes some kind of fanatical “if you use my code you have to sacrifice your first-born child to the FSF gods.”
The “or any later version” GPL boilerplate text is a trojan horse. With it, developers lose the power to set the licensing terms for their own software.
I think many projects will remove that piece of text from their code once GPLv3 gets final. Those whose developers don’t like v3, and can actually change it without having to exume dead bodies to ask them for permission.
FSCK this DRM madness. If companies want to produce hardware that only runs binaries signed by them, fine. I just wan’t them to be required to publish their changes so that I can benefit from them when I CHOOSE to use hardware that doesn’t have those restrictions.
Edited 2006-08-04 16:45
What exactly IS the PROBLEM with the GPLv2? It has served us well for years and doesn’t seem to be hampering the growth of FOSS in any way…
One of the main problem areas is that companies like tivo have found a way to restrict freedoms that are otherwise protected by the GPL by using DRM and the DMCA. Also the legal language in v2 is not as optimized for non US legal systems as it could be.
The GPLv2 is a reasonable license, most developers have a general understanding of what it does or doesn’t allow, and has already been proven in court. Version 3 is more than just quid pro quo “if you distribute changes to my code, you have to give your changes back” and becomes some kind of fanatical “if you use my code you have to sacrifice your first-born child to the FSF gods.”
What part of the changes in v3 would you characterize as requiring the surrendering of first born childeren to?
The principle freedoms that the GPL seeks to protect have not changed. The language in v3 has been updated from v2 to continue to protect those freedoms in a changed and changing technical/legal environment
The “or any later version” GPL boilerplate text is a trojan horse. With it, developers lose the power to set the licensing terms for their own software.
Not really. It simply means that downstream developers have the choice of using the code under v2 or higher. Neither the original author nor other developers who wish to modify (and release their modified versions of) the code are forced to use v3, though both parties have the right do so.
“What part of the changes in v3 would you characterize as requiring the surrendering of first born childeren to?”
It isn’t so much the wording, but the spirit of the new version. The old version has been criticized for being “communist” in several ocasions, but it is actually very pragmatic and practical. Developers invest time and effort in building software, so they want those who build upon it to give back their changes. Fair enough.
Of course, the FSF has always had a more political view on it, but that doesn’t mean the general community (and those outside of the community) shared that view. With v3, there is no way around it, the GPL becomes a clear political tool to push the FSF’s political agenda.
The GPLv2 restricts the distribution of modified versions of the code, and mandates that the source code be available for anyone who wants it. The GPLv3 special cases certain *usage* patterns, and that is both minimal in terms of text quantity and major in terms of impact.
It’s like socialism… Socialism is a good idea, but push it a bit too far and you have communism, a (real world tested) bad idea. The GPLv3 is crossing the line between what’s reasonable and what’s just plain fundamentalism.
DRM is generally a bad idea, it’s bad for users and especially for people that like to tinker with their hardware. But we cannot fight DRM with the GPL, it is both stupid and bound to fail from the start.
Fighting DRM is in the hands of consumers. If there is demand for non-DRMed hardware, the vendors will build it. If it allows to do extra nifty stuff, the general public will buy it.
People assume that consumers are just a bunch of idiots, but that is false. Put an MP3 player on the market without it being able to play unsigned files and you’ll have a guaranteed flop. The same goes for PC hardware unable to run pirated copies of Windows. I can go on all day if you wish, the examples are many and varied.
Now, about Tivo… that’s an appliance… who cares if it only runs signed binaries? They could drop that functionality and replace it with flash memory chips programmable only via some weird analog protocol and the result would be the same. Who cares if I can’t run a custom firmware on my DVD player, or on my car’s ECU?
Let’s look at wireless APs… There are people and businesses out there that will buy hardware from Linksys by the truckload just because they can fit it with custom firware. Because of this, Linksys actually *sells* hardware that allows this. These devices have (considering the bundled firmware) overpowered CPUs and extra memory for god’s sake!
The GPLv2 is enough. This is a perfect example for “if it isn’t broken, DON’T FIX IT.”
Version 3 is more than just quid pro quo “if you distribute changes to my code, you have to give your changes back” and becomes some kind of fanatical “if you use my code you have to sacrifice your first-born child to the FSF gods.”
Been drinking too much of Linus’ koolaid? You don’t have to sacrifice anything under the GPLv3. All the GPLv3-d2 states, is that you can’t use soft- or hardware DRM to screw end-users and developers out of the four freedoms embedded in the GPL. GPLv3 code will remain free FSF style.
FSCK this DRM madness. If companies want to produce hardware that only runs binaries signed by them, fine. I just wan’t them to be required to publish their changes so that I can benefit from them when I CHOOSE to use hardware that doesn’t have those restrictions.
Until hardware containing DRM chips become mandatory. Then you either can’t buy hardware anymore or you might have a chance of finding safe harbour in GPLv3 software that gives you the keys to take control of those DRM chips.
It’s your party. You choose the option you like best.
A little piece of advice, start reading the second draft comprehensively for yourself and try your utmost to understand that document. You will see it is not at all different in intent to the GPLv2.
Linus gets it: the FSF is a cult. I can understand (and even admire) their no-compromise stand on what they believe in, but I don’t really care about their cause, and they don’t care about anything else (like technology.) I don’t let them call me evil/immoral (or rather, I don’t care): I regard them like any other sect that wants me to live in the woods and sacrifice my pets to the full moon.
Software Should Be Free is a wonderful idea, but like Marx, Engels, and Ayn Rand, Stallman gave no thought to the practical consequences. The dream is that everyone gets to use everyone else’s work, just like in college; the reality is that anyone who wants to use GPL code that they didn’t entirely create gives up their rights to the part they did (no dual licensing if anyone else’s code is involved.) Anyone can then hang on a GUI and profit, as long as their GUI code isn’t worth taking (e.g., VB.) Does that add value? Is it better than closed source?
GPL3 won’t change anything for me (I generally don’t touch GPL code except for personal use) but it will cause even more FUD that will inevitably hurt computing, free or commercial. And why not? Its purpose is to advance a cause, not technology.
Some peoples ideas about what FSF stand for and what the practical realities of what they produce are just strange.
the FSF is a cult
No, they aren’t. RMS has strong beliefs and he is unwavering in his commitment to them, this hardly makes him a cultist. Read something like Eben Moglen’s ‘free culture’… he is an importand FSF guy, one of the main drafters of GPL v3 and a very reasonable person.
Software Should Be Free is a wonderful idea, but like Marx, Engels, and Ayn Rand, Stallman gave no thought to the practical consequences.
So far, the consequences is that free software has changed the world. The SCO trial is an example of the real world applicability of the GPL. In fact, the simplicity of the GPLs use of copyright law is genius in its practicality.
the reality is that anyone who wants to use GPL code that they didn’t entirely create gives up their rights to the part they did (no dual licensing if anyone else’s code is involved.) Anyone can then hang on a GUI and profit, as long as their GUI code isn’t worth taking (e.g., VB.) Does that add value? Is it better than closed source?
The reality is there is a lot of software published under other licenses. Apple took BSD, modified it and closed it. Is this a step forward? Does it matter, when there are choiced available? Use GPL code and live with the GPL. Use BSD code and take advantage of the freedoms from that license. Use a commercial license and do what ever it is that you payed for the right to do. Obviously enough people see value in GPL code that they use it despite the requirements it places on them (and this is not just linux distro sellers like redhat or novell but companies making switching gear like nortel for example).
GPL3 won’t change anything for me (I generally don’t touch GPL code except for personal use) but it will cause even more FUD that will inevitably hurt computing, free or commercial. And why not? Its purpose is to advance a cause, not technology.
So everything that has gone before, all the advances that have been made will all just disapear because a license needed to be updated for the modern legal/technological times, whilst still protecting the same freedoms that it’s previous versions protected?
advance a cause, not technology?
Dude, what do you think sharing does except allow advancement. Look at where linux started at and where it has advanced. Now look at proprietary, what advancement do you see? Why bother advancing when you have someone locked in and paying for something? So you think closed code is somehow helpful to advancement? Oh well, I must be off my rocker because I feel like you got it bass ackwards.
Dude, what do you think sharing does except allow advancement. Look at where linux started at and where it has advanced.
It started at being an imitation of Minix, and it has advanced to being an imitation of Unix.
Since both Minix and Unix were accomplished without these so-called “freedoms”, Linux is no argument that they matter.
Why bother advancing when you have someone locked in and paying for something?
Because some other player is out there grabbing the new market share by having advanced. The industry made pretty good progress that way for forty years without the FSF’s so-called “freedoms”.
So you think closed code is somehow helpful to advancement?
Can be. So can open code, which has been around at least as long as closed code.
One doesn’t need the GPL for advancement. One doesn’t even need the GPL for open source. Ask anyone who used SHARE’s archive in the 60s, the ACM collected algorithms, The DECUS tapes, comp.sources, any of a thousand FTP archives that existed before the GPL, et cetera.
Consumers with a “my convenience first” complex will sooner cause freedom to be lost than won.
Are we talking about software here? Geez, you make it sound like the essense of life, I have news for you, Software is a tool, just like a hammer, like a table, is a medium to be productive not to jail you in a ideology and interfiere in your work.
Freedom affects all aspects of life and the way you approach it, will give others the opportunity to exploit you.
Be glad there are such loonies as me, we take care of the intangibles, while you are all “pragmatic” and “getting work done”.
Freedom affects all aspects of life and the way you approach it, will give others the opportunity to exploit you.
Be glad there are such loonies as me, we take care of the intangibles, while you are all “pragmatic” and “getting work done”.
Oh yeah, thank you for stop my productivity with the drivers and software I need, thank you for the constants crashes, than you for the unsoported format, thank you for make me work 2 hours in something I should spend only minutes, thank you very much.
h yeah, thank you for stop my productivity with the drivers and software I need, thank you for the constants crashes, than you for the unsoported format, thank you for make me work 2 hours in something I should spend only minutes, thank you very much.
I think you’ve lost some or all marbles. We did not take anything away from you. You can use any software you like, even FOSS, but if you are going to use FOSS, play by its rules. If you can’t do that, please move your body somewhere else.
What FOSS does is offer an alternative for those who don’t need the kind of environment you seem to promote. Different people, different tastes. I say FOSS, you say proprietary.
We did not take anything away from you.
Who is we? are you part of FOSS?
play by its rules.
Well, its rules suck IMHO.
If you can’t do that, please move your body somewhere else.
ditto, I already doing it.
What FOSS does is offer an alternative for those who don’t need the kind of environment you seem to promote.
Then stop highjacking the word Freedom, and promote it like what it is, a restictive copyright license giving all the control to FOSS, and give us the word Freedom back.
Then stop highjacking the word Freedom, and promote it like what it is, a restictive copyright license giving all the control to FOSS, and give us the word Freedom back.
Freedom is subjective and personal. I subscribe to the definition of the FSF when it comes to computing. If you don’t, than that is your problem.
See, it is you outsiders who are all riled up about FOSS, not us insiders. You seem to want in, but somehow you can’t play by the house rules.
If you think you need to use something else than FOSS, then do so, you are not affecting me and nobody ever forced you to muck about with a free OS (which you could not get running properly judging by your comments about crashing and drivers and what not).
wow, that didn’t make much sense. No one has taken the word freedom from anyone. FSF use it to describe the four freedoms the GPL seeks to preserve:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
All of the above are ‘Freedoms’. Collectively the name tagged for software that seeks to preserve these freedoms it ‘free software’. Whats the biggie? Nowhere is the term misused. No control is hijacked, noone is made to use the license. People choose to use it because they respect the freedoms it protects. Their freedoms and the freedoms of those who follow are what they are choosing to protect. That isn’t a restriction its a choice and noone has the right to make that choice but the developer. It’s their freedom, it’s their code.
Actually not, when the mention the words “Your freedom”, they are twisting the word because they are talking in general and not being specific of who’s freedom or the concept of freedom, so yes, the word freedom is twisted and abused for the FOSS
and GPLv3d2 restricts freedom 1 in order to accomplish a goal not part of any of the four freedoms.
and GPLv3d2 restricts freedom 1 in order to accomplish a goal not part of any of the four freedoms.
how? how can I adapt a programme to my needs if, when I have modified the source code, I come to run it and find that I can’t because it has not been signed with the correct digital key? and the company that holds that key won’t let me have it and the DMCA stops me from reverse engineering it?
Not so. The GPL is a software license and is used (or not) by software developers, so the ‘your’ being referenced is developers and it their freedoms that are protected, along with those that come after.
The language in my previous post is from the GNU web site and it refers to ‘The freedom….’ not ‘Your freedom…’ so by and large the language being used by FSF is not even cast in ‘your’ frame of reference anyhow.
Wow. Lots of sound and fury, lots of evangelizing, lots of moralizing, too little rationalizing and real world perspective.
Take a look at this post if you want to see Linus’ viewpoint:
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/02/1636216
Linus’ stance is that anti-DRM provisions are misguided, and he has no intention of switching because v2 already protects the freedom he is most concerned about, access to the source. It was never about relgion or revolution for him.
Hardware locks? Tough titty. That’s a hardware issue.
Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes on somebody else’s hardware. But it in no way changes the fact that you got all the source code, and you can make changes (and use their changes) to it. That requirement has always been there, even with plain GPLv2. You have the source.
The difference? The hardware may only run signed kernels. The fact that the hardware is closed is a _hardware_ license issue. Not a software license issue. I’d suggest you take it up with your hardware vendor, and quite possibly just decide to not buy the hardware. Vote with your feet. Join the OpenCores groups. Make your own FPGA’s.
Taking it a step further:
And it’s important to realize that signed kernels that you can’t run in modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad idea in many cases.
For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having their kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a “secure policy”) or marking the resulting kernel as “Tainted” (under a “less secure” policy) is a GOOD THING.
Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat creates. That’s INSANE.
Btw, what about signed RPM archives? How well do you think a secure auto-updater would work if it cannot trust digital signatures?
I think a lot of people may find that the GPLv3 “anti-DRM” measures aren’t all that wonderful after all.
Because digital signatures and cryptography aren’t just “bad DRM”. They very much are “good security” too.
Babies and bathwater..
Need more? How about this:
> So taking open software and closed hardware and combining it into something
> that I cannot modify is ok by you?
But you CAN modify the software part of it. You can run it on other hardware.
It boils down to this: we wrote the software. That’s the only part _I_ care about, and perhaps (at least to me) more importantly, because it’s the only part we created, it’s the only part that I feel we have a moral right to control.
I _literally_ feel that we do not – as software developers – have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.
That’s my standpoint, at least. Always has been. It’s the reason I chose the GPL in the first place (and it’s the exact same reason that I wrote the original Linux copyright license). I do _software_, and I license _software_.
And I realize that others don’t always agree with me. That’s fine. You don’t have to. But I licensed my project under a license _I_ agreed with, which is the GPLv2. Others who feel differently can license under their own licenses. Including, very much, the GPLv3.
I’m not arguing against the GPLv3.
I’m arguing that the GPLv3 is wrong for _me_, and it’s not the license I ever chose.
Seems rational to me. Too bad the zealots, as they often do, have tried to hijack the agenda for their own cause.
Linus wants linux to prosper and grow through collaborative and shared efforts. And yes, I’m sure he would like it to remain and become even more commercially viable. That probably rubs many people the wrong way.
It’s amazing to me how this has been twisted and perverted by the FSF anarchists. Linus chose the GPL for pragmatic reasons, to help accelerate it’s development. Now a very vocal minority, many of whom likely haven’t even contributed code in the first place, want to turn around and smash him over the head with it because he refused to embrace restrictive freedom. It’s just plain sad.
The zealots will drive OSS from growing mainstream acceptance back into a fringe niche, and maybe that’s the way they want it. The FSF crowd has mistakenly assumed linux has achieved a sufficient enough saturation point that they can crawl out of the woodwork and start waving it like a big club and screaming “HERETIC!” at anybody not embracing their agenda. The rest of the industry sees a vocal minority waving their collective popsicle stick around squealing about freedom, and will happily move on to greener pastures and bigger opportunities.
Really, this is no different than the devs who have suddenly piped up about binary modules, only this time they can’t leverage copyright because with Linus’ and others consent, the kernel must remain v2. Hence the crying.
One other thing people seem to overlook is that a considerable portion of key linux kernel code came from companies like IBM, HP, SGI etc. These companies aren’t on a religious crusade, and they’re not supporting a charitable cause. The anti-commercial faction of the community needs to be ready to find some compromises if they want to continue to receive the funding and support they’ve taken for granted all this time.
Linus is trying to evolve the way development works. FSF wants a paradigm shift. And judging by this thread, it’s evident that not everyone even understands the issue but feels qualified to condemn him anyways.
I just hope the quiet majority stays the course and doesn’t get distracted by this.
Sigh. Oh well, bring on the negative mod points, I’m ready for them. It’s worth the vent.
Linus, like everyone is entitled to their opinion and like all the holders of copyright in the linux kernel he is entitled to choose to publish under what ever license he sees fit.
Of babies and bathwater: to use another metaphor, companies using signed code and hardware enforced execution restrictions are pulling the ladder up behind them as are those who continue to dogmatically chant that ‘practical make right’ (see, us zealots can use just as polarizing, dopey language as anyone).
Freedom got us this far but now that there a few bumps coming up and some inconveniant issues to face, its just easier to be ‘practical’ and discard what got us this far than face a few hard truths. One of those is that users have rights under the GPL as well, and one of those rights is to modify and execute code covered by the GPL. If the original code is locked with a digital signature such that we can’t make a modified version of it and have it execute then that is one of our freedoms taken away from us. If someone tried to do this (take away a GPL ensured freedom) by releasing binary only they are prevented by the GPL and copyright law, but at present if they do it using code signing backed up by the DMCA then nothing can currently stop them. Why is one means of circumventing the GPL bad (releasing binary only) and another ‘practical’?
Issues like security and the use of TPM are a red herring. The fact that hardware can enforce execution policies regarding signed code is not an either / or deciding factor for GPLv3. Hardware can still limit code execution to signed binaries. Companies can still release signed binaries whose keys are kept secret (allowing for releaser guaranteed security for example) so long as the software can also be built, signed and executed with a publicly available key. And there we are back to freedom again. People can choose to use privately secured versions of software or they can choose to exercise freedom 1 of the GPL and modify and execute software as they see fit. And this is all without pushing anything onto the hardware vendor themselves beyond what they are already doing: providing an environment that executes signed code.
One of those is that users have rights under the GPL as well, and one of those rights is to modify and execute code covered by the GPL. If the original code is locked with a digital signature such that we can’t make a modified version of it and have it execute then that is one of our freedoms taken away from us. If someone tried to do this (take away a GPL ensured freedom) by releasing binary only they are prevented by the GPL and copyright law, but at present if they do it using code signing backed up by the DMCA then nothing can currently stop them. Why is one means of circumventing the GPL bad (releasing binary only) and another ‘practical’?
But the thing is that even with signed code, the GPL requires the source to be made available. So with Linus’ reasoning, one still has the ability to study and modify GPL-protected code even if it is signed because the source for modification etc. must be provided. You can still execute it and run it, just not necessarily on the protected hardware.
I’m of the same viewpoint as Linus that hardware locking is a vendor issue and outside of the scope of software licensing. From my interpretation, v3 is effectively sending a message that anybody intending to produce hardware for running GPL v3 licensed code must not prohibit those users from running their own modified code. This is a shift from simply saying that anyone using GPL code must make that code available for modification.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not exactly in agreement with the issue of hardware locking, at least ideologically. However, I can also understand that in cases where vendors are subsidizing hardware and producing a service (ie. Tivo) then there are valid business reasons for why they would want to restrict the code running on their hardware. I don’t see it as a question of freedom, because the purchasers of that hardware are not being forced to. I also understand that Tivoization is not ideal, but at the end of the day they didn’t violate the kernel GPL. I’d rather suffer the leachers than risk scaring away potential innovators.
From the point of view of legislation like the DMCA, one of the biggest continuing criticisms of the DMCA is that it protects content holders even at expense of existing provisions and precedents in copyright law for things such as fair use. I think it might be overly optimistic to assume that v3 would circumvent that, particularly since the GPL in general hasn’t faced a definite precedent-setting legal challenge in the US. IANAL though, so take that with a grain of salt.
At any rate, things like trusted computing or digitally singed binaries are valid points of debate but I don’t think it belongs in the GPL, which should be restricted to software licensing requirements only rather than the implementation, as far as I’m concerned that is a restriction of freedom (just MHO). I know at least in my case, and I’m sure for many others, this is the issue that is elevating the GPL from being a tool to being a statement, and not all OSS supporters are necessarily looking to make a statement.
I just can’t help feeling that people often use the word Freedom when what they really mean is Entitlement, and they’re two different concepts.
Anyways, just my 2c.
The FSF ideology has put limits on what can be done in OSS but it has finally reached a point where it matters. GNU has been more interested in politics than making software. They can be wrong. If they were always right, we’d be using Hurd and this Linus Torvalds, who only cares about his software rather than fighting for your freedom, wouldn’t be on the map.
The real issue? This “freedom our way” approach has real potential to sink OSS.
I don’t plan on using ANY GPL3 software. If the author cares more about politics than writing useful software, I’m sure I can find something better.
If they were always right, we’d be using Hurd and this Linus Torvalds, who only cares about his software rather than fighting for your freedom, wouldn’t be on the map
An alternate point of view is that, were the GPL less effective, we’d not have linux at all as the SCOs of the world would have managed to sink a less well protected project.
Which BSDs have sunk because they didn’t have the GPL to protect them? Was it the FSF or was it Corporations that had an investment int OSS and stepped in?
There is a real split in the community here. If the GPL helped at all, it was gaining converts who saw it as a way to tell Microsoft to screw off. Now it’s just a pain because its roots are in an ideology that doesn’t really value the user’s freedom but rather seeks to hurt commercial software.
It would be nice if Linus would step up by adopting a reasonable GPL2 derivative. The problem is because GPL is used so much, FSF feels they can speak for everyone and, as Linus said, just ignore suggestions.
An alternate point of view is that, were the GPL less effective, we’d not have linux at all as the SCOs of the world would have managed to sink a less well protected project.
It’s an alternative point of view, but it’s not one that’s supported by the facts. AT&T tried to sink UCB’s attempt to make BSD freely available, and failed in court. The GPL had nothing to do with it.
Where is alan cox when we need him?
All of this ‘just be practical’ ‘zealots are hindering OSS’ talk make me think of a championship basketball team trying to defend their title.
The year they won they played as a team. They had great offence, they had hustle and they played great defence. Neither their offence or defence alone won them the championship but the combination of them got it done and along the way they overcame taller, better financed teams teams because they had teamwork. Not everyone liked eachother as such, but they were all pulling in the same direction.
Now its a new season, they’ve tasted success and it has frankly made them a bit arrogant. Where differences were set aside for the common good they now turn into bickering. Where hard work on D led to a good team offence, now players rest up on the defence end and can’t wait to get down to offence end and jack up a shot. They’re still good, they’re still going to make the playoffs, but secretly everyone knows that they’re going to lose.
The (obvious and clumsy) analogy here is that great technical skills and adherence to a philosophy (or religion or zealotry or whatever you want to describe it as) got us this far, but it starting to look thats as far as we’ll go. Yup, I know that Linus never bought into the philosophy of it (the great offensive player who gets to dog it a bit on D) but a lot of others who contribute either to the kernel or to the (much greater, by volume) rest of the code that goes into a FOSS OS do. And that same philosophy provided the framework upon which all of this is built, weather or not that was a direct intention of one of the more visible member’s of the FOSS comunity intended.
There are real problems with digital restrictions being used to limit the freedoms GPL users have previously enjoyed. Its not about sharing music or security, the former is simply not part of the discusion, the latter can be implemented without any change to TPM type hardware and without reducing the potential security benefits. Great offence is fun to watch (and play) but in the end you have to have defence to win the championship.
p.s. the competition analogy is not meant to set up that I’m an anti MS guy… by winning I’m not talking about beating MS or killing commercial software or anything, just about having the best software. The best desktop, the best servers and having the control in my hands.
Edited 2006-08-04 20:41
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=191…
In the conclusion, the author says:
There’s no good answer to designing a “good DRM.” Or rather, no DRM is good DRM. iTunes is instructive again in this regard: Apple sold a billion tracks in three years in spite of its DRM, not because of it. No Apple customer bought an iTune because of the DRM. What’s more, every track in the iTunes music store can be downloaded for free from P2P networks. Apple proves that you can sell music without DRM all day long — all adding DRM to Apple’s music does is give Apple the ability to abuse its customers and its partners from the labels.
If that’s happens I have the freedom to stop buying Apple producs.
the ‘DRM’ component of GPLv3 has nothing to do with music or other digital media, it is about using digitally signed code and hardware execution restrictions to limit the freedoms otherwise guaranteed by the GPL. Nothing in GPLv3 would impact the uptake or not of DRM schemes that effected applications like iTunes
But the thing is that even with signed code, the GPL requires the source to be made available. So with Linus’ reasoning, one still has the ability to study and modify GPL-protected code even if it is signed because the source for modification etc. must be provided. You can still execute it and run it, just not necessarily on the protected hardware
I see the point of view this argument is made from but I think it falls short in that, until recently, the freedoms of the GPL were able to be upheld purely at the source code level. Having the source was enough. Though there is no guarantee it will come to pass, today we are faced with the possibility that access to source code may not be enough for us to be able to maintain the freedoms we have enjoyed up until now and that have allowed FOSS to become what it has. With laws like the DMCA in place, with the backing of the content industries and they sway they seem to hold with policy makers and with companies like microsoft and apple prepared to do what ever it takes to get into bed with the content industry, there is an actual possibility that general purpose computing devices may stop being available as we currently understand them to be.
TPM and the current revisions to the BIOS standards backed by law like the DMCA could see us arrive at a point where we don’t have the keys to the locks on our own systems. GPLv2 would be helpless then to enforce our previous rights to modify and execute code.
It would be nice to hope that market forces would prevent this, but so far it hasn’t helped with music, the upcoming DVD successors or the newer digital audio disc standards that don’t allow players to output a digital signal anymore. With the backdrop of the free market’s failure to overcome these restrictions in the best interests of the consumer, it seems appropriate to try and preserve what freedom we can. Hopefully it won’t be needed, but better safe than sorry and sadly naive to think it is out of the question.
edit: ps. my referring to DRM and music is done to illustrate another field facing a similar problem, not to suggest that GPLv3 has anything directly to do with multimedia DRM. That is a completely unrelated struggle, but one whose lessons should not be lost
Edited 2006-08-04 22:30
How has BSD benefited from apple using them? Has the BSD license helped them rise to prominence? The OP speculated about a theoretical situation regarding the GPL, I responded with another one. Neither position can be argued with any real ability as neither represents the real world, they are just “what ifs?”
If the GPL helped at all, it was gaining converts who saw it as a way to tell Microsoft to screw off
This is simply not true. It has reduced SCO’s lawsuit to crumbled husk and it has been used many times to force organizations that would have otherwise simply stolen GPL code to make public and available their modifications. A classic example has been router manufacturers using IPTables illegally (eg http://lwn.net/Articles/71418/)
GPL was never about telling MS to screw off, it was about maintaining the free and open study, sharing and development of source code, something for which there was a strong tradition before companies (not just MS, some of the earlier examples were the UNIX companies like Bell after it had been broken up and was no longer compelled to stay out of the OS business for fear of monopoly violations) It is simply not accurate to say its roots are anything to do with ‘hurting commercial software’. It is ensuring that people who choose to have access to software that they can control.
I’m not sure why people want to try and paint the FSF as radical extremists out of touch with reality and trying to hamper free software. Linux came to the GPL not the other way around and it has prosperred from it. RMS sticks to his guns and why shouldn’t he? His goal is free software, not the ascension of linux, the demise of MS or any of the other things he is either accused of or denigrated for impeding. Linux chose to use the license he drafted. That license is being reviewed in light of a changed and changing legal and technical environment so that it continues to protect the same freedoms it has always protected. Linus and the other linux kernel maintainers will choose to use it or not. RMS and FSF will keep pushing their ideal of freedom, Linus is free to feel how ever he wants about the new version and to adopt it or not as he chooses. Sorry to put it so bluntly but the RMS’ GPL has elegantly stood up to all challenges so far, legal or otherwise. Linus’ choice about licensing issues (see: bitkeeper for example) haven’t always stood up so well.
In the end, they are two different people with different ideals. Each has their own body of work which overlap in some areas and each have their own philosophies which clash in some areas. GPL has to date been a resounding success and I’m sure that RMS and FSF don’t see why they not make the changes they feel are required because some of the projects that have chosen to use it might not want to use the latest version.
Besides, if it is that bad, FSF can always release a service pack.
I’m not sure why people want to try and paint the FSF as radical extremists out of touch with reality
I wouldn’t try to paint the entire FSF that way, but I’ve know Richard since ’83, and he’s definitely a radical extremist out of touch with reality.
There’s a reason why the FSF has failed to produce a working HURD, why the GNU toolchain stalled out and didn’t get revived until outsiders picked it up, why there’s almost nothing to show as “GNU” that was actually developed by the FSF or Richard himself.
That reason, pretty much is Richard’s lack of touch with reality.
Great thread guys!
Really enjoyed it and it didn’t really break down into personal attacks.
Cloudy I would respond to you but we would simply be going in circles.
I believe that the freedoms are very important for so many reasons but above all else is that all advancement and improvements are available to anyone. Put simply – sharing is the greatest advancement we can make. Great thread!
devs are users too
I wonder when that part was removed anyway? I remember alan cox mentioning it one time…a long time ago actually.
Shame after six years the argument goes on and on and on…. Isn’t six years enough to warrant a fork?
as alan cox said:
“It isn’t clear that this will be a problem. Very few people specifically
put their code v2 only, and Linus edit of the top copying file was not
done with permission of other copyright holders anyway so really only
affects his code if it is valid at all.”
This, of course, touches on the edges of the big issue with Linux. I doubt very much that it would be possible to show ownership for most of the code in the kernel.
Seems to me the kernel as a whole would not be under any license but each individuals work would be under a license. So I feel that linus will have to listen to other devels about this issue as well instead of acting like he has the final say. I don’t think the issue is anywhere near decided as Mr. Torvalds would like for it to be.
Maybe alan cox has secretly contacted everyone and knows which parts has to be removed/rewritten and as soon as v3 is final he will roll out the new RMX kernel.
maybe???
>If my purpose is to make my software available on vendor X’s hardware-restricted DRMed system, and the only way I can do that is to allow vendor X to sign my binaries and install them on their hardware, I can, under GPLv2.
First it’s not your software, it’s the software from someone else. If you want to do such things with your software you can do it, because you have the copyright and can choose the license
>I’m not using any “power” to restrict any user from doing anything, in this scenario.
You (together with the hardware provider) use your power to restrict other users freedom because they can no longer exercise freedom 1 and adapt their software for their needs.
>But, my freedom to adapt the software to my purpose is now lost to me, because I’m willing to let vendor X sign my software on his hardware, but vendor X is not willing to let you sign your modified version.
no this freedom is not lost, because you can do this for your own needs. But you can only redistribute it (as a bundle hardware+software) if you and the hardware provider are willing to give your costumers the same 4 freedoms. If not your are using your power to deny other users the same freedom you had.
no this freedom is not lost, because you can do this for your own needs. But you can only redistribute it (as a bundle hardware+software) if you and the hardware provider are willing to give your costumers the same 4 freedoms.
And there’s the extention that FSF wants to add to the GPL: moving from what software developers can or can’t do to what hardware providers can or can’t do.
Imposing the will of a software developer on the behavior of a hardware provider was never one of the four “freedoms”.
By the way, in this scenario, I, as software developer, have no customers. I have software that I’m giving away that GPLv3d2 is trying to prevent me from giving away.
>And there’s the extention that FSF wants to add to the GPL: moving from what software developers can or can’t do to what hardware providers can or can’t do.
No that’s no extension. It’s the same thing that GPLv2 does.
Also GPLv2 haven’t allowed hardware providers to deny their users freedom. But at the time GPLv2 was designed the only option for the hardware provider was to take GPLv2 software modified it and than deliver their hardware with the software and don’t give the users the source code.
Today law and technology has changed, today the hardware provider has another option: giving the users the source code but use DRM together with DMCA to deny users freedom.
Law and technology has changed so that someone can distribute GPL software without giving users freedom. GPLv3 will react on the changes of law and technology and will close this hole.
Nothing has changed. If you give someone a copy of your software you have to give him also 4 freedoms too. If you can’t or don’t want give him the 4 freedoms you can’t distribute the software. It’s exactly the same thing GPLv2 does with attention to the new legal and technical environment.
Edited 2006-08-05 17:20
No that’s no extension. It’s the same thing that GPLv2 does.
If it was the same thing that GPLv2 does, there wouldn’t be a need for new language, nor would there be GPLv3 fans making “TiVo” arguments.
If you give someone a copy of your software you have to give him also 4 freedoms too.
Um no. If I give someone a copy of the binaries I also have to give them a copy of the sources, if they ask for them. That’s the only thing that GPLv2 requires of me, with respect to redistribution. Technically, under the GPL, I don’t even have to make it possible for them to be able to reproduce the binaries from the sources.
Don’t confuse FSF rhetoric with the actual license.
>If it was the same thing that GPLv2 does, there wouldn’t be a need for new language
There is a need for new language because technology and law has changed since GPLv2.
>>If you give someone a copy of your software you have to give him also 4 freedoms too.
>Um no. If I give someone a copy of the binaries I also have to give them a copy of the sources, if they ask for them. That’s the only thing that GPLv2 requires of me, with respect to redistribution.
That’s the problem and pobably Linus has the same problem.
You look at the GPLv2 and say: “look GPLv2 does A, B and C and now GPLv3 does A, B, C and D”. That’s not the same, D have to be removed. This way of looking at the whole discussion creates two problems:
1. GPLv2 does A, B, C if GPLv3 should do only A,B,C too than we don’t need GPLv3 at all because than GPLv3 would be equal to GPLv2.
2. That’s the much bigger problem. You look at GPLv2 like on a “technical solution” but the GPL is not just a “technical solution” but a a license which carries some aims. This aims aren’t “If I give someone a copy of the binaries I also have to give them a copy of the sources” the aims are “if i give you a copy of the software i have to give you the same 4 freedoms i had enjoyed”. As GPLv2 was written there was no DRM and no DMCA so to achieve the aim GPLv2 was written like you know it and GPLv2 does it job. Today we have new technology and new laws so to achieve the same aim we have to change the GPLv2 to GPLv3.
The aims are the same: “if i give you a copy of the software i have to give you the same 4 freedoms i had enjoyed” but since technology and law has changed, the text of GPLv3 have changed too.
So your whole problem, and probably Linus problem too, is that you have a wrong picture from the GPL and the aims of GPL and maybe the GPL was never the right license for you.
Edited 2006-08-05 20:23
Technology hasn’t changed. The so-called ‘TiVo’ argument is about existing technology, and code-signing, while not used commercially, was around before the GPL.
There were also techical attempts to restrict the redistribution of software, even in binary forms, although they weren’t called “DRM”.
The DMCA prohibits reverse engineering. The GPL V2 already makes that irrelevant, and nothing being added to V3 makes any difference.
So your whole problem, and probably Linus problem too, is that you have a wrong picture from the GPL and the aims of GPL and maybe the GPL was never the right license for you.
If by “wrong” you mean I don’t happen to buy the FSF’s philosophy, then sure, I’m “wrong”. But if you mean by “wrong”, I don’t understand Richard’s intent, the FSF’s intent, or the actual GPL, then you are very mistaken.
Since you continue to fail to understand the distinction between my actions as an individual, which is what the “four freedoms” are supposedly about, and the ability to run GPL-ed software on particular hardware, which they’ve never been about, I would suggest that, perhaps, it is not Linus (who has access to OSDL’s IP staff and many other legal experts,) or myself (who has been dealing with Richard and his ideas since I first submitted bug fixes to emacs in ’83,) but rather, yourself, who is not understanding something.
>Technology hasn’t changed. The so-called ‘TiVo’ argument is about existing technology, and code-signing, while not used commercially, was around before the GPL.
Code signing was around before GPL but code signing together with hardware that runs only software with a special signature and can’t be changed by the user was not around at the time GPLv2 was written.
>If by “wrong” you mean I don’t happen to buy the FSF’s philosophy.
We talk about Free Software, Copyleft and the GPL all three things are defined and written by the FSF so if you deny to think about their philosophy i understand that you don’t get the idea of Free Software, Copyleft and the GPL.
>Since you continue to fail to understand the distinction between my actions as an individual, which is what the “four freedoms” are supposedly about
Yes, Free Software and the 4 freedoms are about the action of individuals.
And yes with GPLv3 licensed Free Software you have the freedom to use the software or any purpose, you can change the software and you can (re-)distribute the software.
But with GPLv3 there is one more component: Copyleft. Copyleft removes one kind of power which you have with non-copyleft Free Software, the power to deny other users freedom. This component says: You can exercise all 4 freedoms but if you re-distribute the software you have to make sure that the recipients can exercise the same 4 freedoms.
Now if their are only PC’s with a “trusted computing”-chip which performs only with software signed by you and you sell this PC’s with GPLv3 software and don’t allow your recipients to run their modified version you deny them their freedom. And the GPL doesn’t allow you to deny other users freedom.
Edited 2006-08-05 22:53
Code signing was around before GPL but code signing together with hardware that runs only software with a special signature and can’t be changed by the user was not around at the time GPLv2 was written.
Actually it was. GPLv2 was issued in 91. IIRC, the first hardware that would only run signed code was deployed in the mid 80s.
But with GPLv3 there is one more component: Copyleft. Copyleft removes one kind of power which you have with non-copyleft Free Software
Um, are you sure you understand any of this? Richard was using the term “copyleft” before GPL v1 by at least five years.
One of the things that has always cracked me up about his stance is that while he makes all these statements about ‘freedom’, he still requires that any contributor to emacs sign copyright over to the FSF.
This is one of the ways in which his fanaticism has hurt the FSF’s efforts, and one of the reasons why Linus has made Linux a more popular program to develop.
I think we are going in a circle and you always jump from one incidental to another.
So i will write one summary and will than be out of this discussion:
1. With GPLv3 you will be able to use the software licensed under GPLv3 for any purpose on your computers.
2. With GPLv3 you will be able to share the software with your friends
3. With GPLv3 you will be able to re-distribute modified versions.
4. With GPLv3 you will not be able to re-distribute software in a form which deny other users the same freedom you had. Whether you try it by changing the license or by using special hardware (DRM+TPM) together with laws like DMCA (which don’t allow me to bypass DRM).
That’s exactly the same thing GPLv2 does. The only difference is that GPLv3 will close the hole, because with GPLv2 you can use hardware (DRM+TPM) together with laws like DMCA to re-distribute GPLv2 software without giving the recipient all 4 freedoms.
You are free to like or dislike the idea of Free Software, Copyleft and the implementation of this idea in the GPL and you are free to choose the GPL or any other license.
But i think it’s clear what Free Software means, what Copyleft means and what are the values of the FSF and that GPLv3 will respect this values quite well in the age of copyright, softwarepatents, DRM and DMCA.
Edited 2006-08-06 00:36
You know, restating your claims without addressing the comments responding to them doesn’t make your claims any more valid.
1. With GPLv3 you will be able to use the software licensed under GPLv3 for any purpose on your computers.
Not true. I won’t be able to use GPLv3d2 software to run media players that access DRMed content under the most prevelant DRM schemes.
2. With GPLv3 you will be able to share the software with your friends
Who also won’t be able to do that. No different than GPLv2, anyway.
3. With GPLv3 you will be able to re-distribute modified versions.
No different than GPLv2.
4. With GPLv3 you will not be able to re-distribute software in a form which deny other users the same freedom you had.
The sad part is that the folks at the FSF think they’ve closed that loophole, and they haven’t. In particular, the wording of section 3 doesn’t accomplish what they think it does.
That’s exactly the same thing GPLv2 does.
You keep saying this. Then you keep denying it in the very next statement:
The only difference is that GPLv3 will close the hole, because with GPLv2 you can use hardware (DRM+TPM) together with laws like DMCA to re-distribute GPLv2 software without giving the recipient all 4 freedoms.
In other words, you claim that the GPLv3 does the same thing that the GPLv2 did, except that you then point out that it doesn’t.
removed my response because i have decided to stay outside of this senseless flame.
Edited 2006-08-06 10:54
Linus appears to think he has some relevance still. The GPL3 addresses many concerns which threaten free software today, the most significant of which is DRM.
Linus isn’t committed to “Free Software” only to “Open Source”, and there *IS* a difference. Free Software believes in Free (as in Freedom) software and Good Software whereas Open Source only believes in Good Software.
He has rebuked the FSF from the beginning, so why should this come as a shock? I’m not at all suprised.
If Linus doesn’t like it, Linux can stay on GPL2, as no one is forcing them to move.
I know that some projects that I’m part of are already considering switching to GPLv3.
Thanks, GJC
Linus has relevance. Just too many people try to attribute too much relevance to what he says.
I do agree that Linus doesn’t care much about ‘free as in freedom’ so I have no idea why he chose v2 and I honestly think that is a big reason he complains about v3 so much is not because it is v3 but just because it is the FSF.
I mean if he isn’t going to move to v3 or if you believe him that it would be impossible to move to v3 then there is no reason for him to even talk v3 is there? Certainly no reason to criticise it or the FSF developing it right? I mean I usually complain about things that I am personally using, or I want to use not stuff that doesn’t apply to me and that I am not ever going to use.
Make no mistake the license author is the FSF and they have certain things they will introduce. IMO it is not the communitys job to say “strike this” but instead to offer comments on how v3 may have a effect on a situation. If I state “I am going to build a new room in the building and I would like your input” then what I am asking for is your input concerning the room, not that you do not want a room, not that you think I am doing something wrong. It is my building and I already stated I am building a room period.
Sheesh, that almost sounds like a Carmony Analogy.
I wonder – how long is the longest thread in osnews history?
my new test comment
another test comment