OSNews

The kernel happens to be a small (though important) part of the GNU/Linux operating system. The GNU part of the OS will very much become associated with the GPLv3 as will other OSes like FreeBSD and Solaris, who are often complemented with GNU software.

I'm not denying that. I'm simply pointing out that while GNU will go v3, it does not mean that everything else will. This is why I called out the point that v3 is being associated with linux, when the fact is v3 licensing will impact only select components of a linux distro (or Solaris, or BSD) and that those components will not influence the version licensing of other components. So v3 discussions should not make broad assumptions that linux distros are part of the uptake.

If people violate the terms of the GPL, they'll be subject to some form of confrontation by the FSF's lawyers.

*sigh* You're perpetuating the FUD. The FSF has no control over enforcement of the GPL per se, that belongs solely to the copyright holders. The FSF holds copyright on the GNU projects, and I believe some projects such as Samba have assigned copyright in order for the FSF to take legal measures to pursue infringers.

But that's the extent of it.

If I modify and distribute the linux kernel in a manner that violates the GPL, there is nothing the FSF can do since they hold no copyright assignment on the kernel or any of the code. It is strictly up to the developers who hold copyright to enforce the GPL licensing.

This is partially the crux of the whole issue when people claim that kernel developers don't understand the the "spirit" of the GPL, because frankly they don't need to. The only interpretation of the GPL license that matters to the kernel devs is their collective interpretation of it since they alone hold the ability to pursue legal infringements. As long as you use the kernel in a manner that the kernel devs feel is in line with the GPL, then it doesn't matter what the FSF says.

This can be boiled down to the Tivoisation point, RMS says that Tivo violates the spirit of the GPL, the kernel devs say Tivo does not violate the spirit of their implementation of the GPL. One can argue the semantics, but at the end of the day only the kernel devs legal right to enforce it.

As I said, a developer's use of the GPL license does not bind them to the philosophy of the FSF, it simply provides guidance for users as to the terms and conditions under which they may use the software. That's all.

The deal covers all software used in Novell SUSE, including GPL. One key component mentioned in the November 2nd press release was Mono.


Novell holds copyright attribution for mono, so even if the LGPL is being violated with mono (mono is not GPL), Novell alone hold the right to do anything about it. The FSF doesn't.

But that's immaterial. Everybody likes to assume that because this ambiguous patent license applies to customers of Novell that use Suse Linux, that the patent covenant must apply to Suse Linux. That is wrong, and even the FSF had to cave on the point. Legal agreements do not deal with ambiguities and armchair assessments from forum posters. Unless Novell received patent coverage for specific GPL protected products, they have not received patent coverage for GPL protected products. And if they did, they would be violating section 7.

The only way for the FSF to close this loophole is to prevent patent cross-licensing agreements from GPL distributors regardless of whether they specify GPL protected products. Sun, HP, IBM, Intel, SGI, and a raft of other companies have patent agreements with Microsoft, ostensibly to protect themselves and their customers from patent infringement liabilities. In no case do these agreements specify GPL protected software. I am skeptical in the FSF's ability to retaliate against Novell's deal without alienating the other commercial players involved with both GPL and GNU sponsored projects. But as I said, I'll reserve judgment until the final release, maybe they'll surprise me.

The DRM issues associated with the GPLv3 will most likely be solved by end users.

They will ultimately decide what to do with their DRM encrypted media. Whether that means using a program that removes DRM restrictions or using controversial plugins for *nix Media Player that decode DRM laden media.

A example of how restrictions are overcome by *nix users is "libdvdcss". This library allows *nix media players to decode CSS encrypted DVDs, so that the content is playable by end users.

Wrong DRM. GPL v3 will not prevent encrypted protection of digital media or files. It's about hardware locking signed binaries and only permitting specific applications to run, which is ultimately required at kernel level and without a v3 kernel to enforce it, is pretty pointless right now.

But while we're on the topic, the biggest issue with libdvdcss is not the actual licensing, most jurisdictions permit the reverse-engineering of technology to a certain extent. The problem with libdvdcss is the DMCA which makes it basically illegal for US citizens to have access to libdvdcss, (some jursidictions have similar restrictions) which is why the rest of the distros generally stay away from it. They don't want to include something that may or may not be illegal for users to use depending on geography. That's an example of how this is a political problem that licensing is not going to solve, but again, I digress.

Ultimately v3 won't allow users the opportunity to solve their own problem as with media-DRM solutions, it simply prevents users from even having the choice to use hardware locked products.

People have different opinions on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. But you don't have to be "pro-DRM" to be concerned that attempts to eliminate may do more harm than good.

"This can be boiled down to the Tivoisation point, RMS says that Tivo violates the spirit of the GPL, the kernel devs say Tivo does not violate the spirit of their implementation of the GPL. One can argue the semantics, but at the end of the day only the kernel devs legal right to enforce it."

It's not as simple as kernel devs vs. FSF. There is some general awareness about violations and remedies are pursued in a number of ways. Consider

http://gpl-violations.org/

for example. That's one of the great things about free software: the distributed concern about it.

elsewhere wrote:
"I'm not denying that. I'm simply pointing out that while GNU will go v3, it does not mean that everything else will."

this is the first time I can say I totally agree with you. GPLv3 is a natural step for the FSF since it reinforces the base provisions on which it was built. those base provisions that are better protected in this new revision might not be what attracted developer X to use the GPL. and as such he will stick to GPLv2. behold the beauty of choice.


elsewhere wrote:
"This is why I called out the point that v3 is being associated with linux, when the fact is v3 licensing will impact only select components of a linux distro (or Solaris, or BSD) and that those components will not influence the version licensing of other components."

what are you talking about? I haven't seen any 'GNU GPLv3/Linux' statements from FSF. Linux is still GPL licenced.


elsewhere wrote:
"This is partially the crux of the whole issue when people claim that kernel developers don't understand the the "spirit" of the GPL, because frankly they don't need to. The only interpretation of the GPL license that matters to the kernel devs is their collective interpretation of it since they alone hold the ability to pursue legal infringements. As long as you use the kernel in a manner that the kernel devs feel is in line with the GPL, then it doesn't matter what the FSF says. "

again with the nonsense. what exactly is the kernel developers 'collective interpretation' of the GPL? let me answer you, there is no 'collective interpretation'. there is a collective AGREEMENT. and that agreement is the GPLv2.

so no, it's not as if Linus and the rest of the full-time funded top level kernel developers could suddenly pick and choose what parts of the GPLv2 they want to apply. this is not about some agreement between Linus and FSF, this is about an agreement between all those who has contributed to the Linux kernel. again you are spreading pure nonsense.


-"It's about hardware locking signed binaries and only permitting specific applications to run, which is ultimately required at kernel level and without a v3 kernel to enforce it, is pretty pointless right now."

not to a developer who wishes to licence his code so that it cannot be used in a device that employs restrictive DRM. now if a developer has no problem with this, he can use GPLv2.

Edited 2006-11-30 21:59