GPLv3 threatens to fork GNU projects and marginalize the Free Software Foundation, writes Linux observer Bill Weinberg in this essay. Drawing on long experience evangelizing open source licensing to business users, Weinberg suggests that the FSF's GPLv3 high road could be a lonesome one.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
I can't understand all of what you're trying to say, but I'll try to respond as best I can.
First, I'm not talking about the RIAA/MPAA. I'm talking more along the lines of TiVo. The main motivation of the GPLv3 was that the FSF was upset about the way TiVo used the Linux kernel in their set-top boxes.
We are talking about copyright licenses here, not as much about patents. There are some patent provisions in the GPLv3. They prohibit distributors from exercising patent claims on any downstream users of derivative works. As of draft 2 this restriction is limited to IP in the work conveyed by the distributor in question. The distributor retains the right to sue based on IP in downstream modifications. I support these provisions of the GPLv3. I wish they would have stopped here and not included the onerous usage restrictions.
You must be misunderstanding the BSD license. There is nothing in the BSD license that requires the availability of corresponding source code. This is the biggest difference between the two licenses. Most members of the BSD community also believe their license is not copyleft. In other words, that a derivative of a BSD work is not required to be licensed under the BSD. This is also different from the GPL. However, certain compelling interpretations of the BSD license text suggest that a relicensed derivative work doesn't retain the main license grant to redistribute.
The FSF is not in any way officially connected to the Linux kernel project. That's one of the main reasons for the whole GNU/Linux naming convention. The GNU project (before the creation of the FSF), led by Richard Stallman, drafted the license that Linus chose for the Linux kernel. GNU was a big part of the early success of Linux. Linux needed a userland, 386BSD was embroiled in copyright litigation, and GNU's Hurd kernel was already running behind schedule (and remains that way to this day). But neither the FSF nor the GNU project actively contribute to the Linux kernel.
Sun is releasing their OpenSolaris kernel under BOTH the CDDL and GPLv3. This means that users can choose whichever terms they want to abide by. If they want to use OpenSolaris to implement a DRM system, they are allowed by the CDDL. If they want an exclusive right-to-file for IP in their source files, the CDDL grants them that right. The GPLv3 doesn't really grant any rights not covered by the CDDL, but it does lock-out non-GPLv3 kernel modules. That means no Linux-derived modules for OpenSolaris. But also the Linux kernel cannot use OpenSolaris-derived modules (because the kernel doesn't use the "or later version" provision). Sun figures that keeping the Linux developers' grubby hands off of OpenSolaris code is worth not having access to the Linux kernel's vast array of drivers. More walls courtesy of the GPLv3. So much for sharing...
But I believe that Sun's ultimate motivation for dual-licensing with the GPLv3 was to gain street cred and attract developers for its alternate FOSS universe. They realized that since the CDDL is so permissive (from the developer's point of view), the GPLv3 doesn't really change anything. It doesn't impose strong copyleft (link definition) because the CDDL permits weak copyleft (file definition). As soon as Linus made it clear that Linux was staying GPLv2, Sun could go ahead with its master plan: to create an alternate free software community protected from Linux by a legal barrier, aka GPLv3.
Member since:2006-01-01
/* Sun could go ahead with its master plan: to create an alternate free software community protected from Linux by a legal barrier, aka GPLv3.*/
this sounds more likely to be the motive for sun.
I just don't want the FSF to lean more towards Sun because it followed rms wishes by giving him a kernel, so of speak, by licensing it under the GPLv3 and start trying to push linux into /dev/null. so i guess Sun is the enemy not MS,yet
Member since:2005-07-13
But I believe that Sun's ultimate motivation for dual-licensing with the GPLv3 was to gain street cred and attract developers for its alternate FOSS universe. They realized that since the CDDL is so permissive (from the developer's point of view), the GPLv3 doesn't really change anything. It doesn't impose strong copyleft (link definition) because the CDDL permits weak copyleft (file definition).
Which I think is a point that's lost on many in the recent Sun-love-in over the idea they'll use GPL v3.
At the end of the day it's a hollow move; any contributions from the free-side of the community to openSolaris will have to be dual licensed under GPLv3/CDDL, and in fact will have to attribute copyright to Sun who will reserve the right to relicense at will.
The only way solaris will become a viable kernel for those espousing the 4-freedoms is for the community to immediately fork it into a v3-only licensed version, which will be interesting to watch.
So no matter how much the stubbornness of the linux kernel devs irks the FL segment of the FLOSS camp, the linux kernel will likely still remain the most viable kernel for their intentions of a truly free OS.
As soon as Linus made it clear that Linux was staying GPLv2, Sun could go ahead with its master plan: to create an alternate free software community protected from Linux by a legal barrier, aka GPLv3.
Bingo. Sun has nothing to lose with selecting v3, so why not? With v2 they would have ran too great a risk of merging and co-mingling code with linux. Sun is using the community to earn cred as an OSS player, and the FSF is using Sun to earn cred for v3. But nobody is really gaining anything other than hype.
Of course, having said all that, I still applaud Sun's move; I just don't think it's the paradigm shift for the FLOSS community that many are making it out to be.
Member since:2006-03-12
@butters 5 whole paragraphs and you say nothing, you have not even attempted to address any of my responces. You still do not define freedom or this mythical service.
TiVo is hardware. I'm in the UK where it *failed*. As far as I know the one service they provided was a TV Guide. This was before EPG or the rise of internet databases, and was optional.
I'm very much into HDR. I have one. The point is that TiVo can use the Linux Kernel...and I can't change it. I can't update it to take advantage of EXT4, take advantage of bugfixes in the kernel etc etc. Show me the freedom!? The freedom and you use the word loosly is the freedom to *stop* my freedom...when the license is about protecting my freedom. Eh!?
I do understand the BSD license....but to argue that source code you cannot *use*, either by *patents* the point of the article or because only certain binaries work is better than it just being a binary, is a nonsense.
The argument put by Linus is that widespread adoption of Linux, will mean more hands/eyes from companies working and fixing the code, and the Linux codebase will benefit from that *indirectly*. You either agree with him or not.
I don't becuase
1) That advantages of an open source over a binary solution are lost to the user
2) That companies routinely try to abuse GPL
3) That changes cannot come from the users of a device rather than the company.
etc etc.
I think you have a misunderstandings about the FSF, and its an idea thats pushed far too often on this site. The reality is the License goes *far* beyond that of the FSF. GPL is the *predominant* license in open source...and for good reason. The reason is simply that the ideals of FSF simply extend further than its own relatively small group. All that Linux is...is a better Hurd. The only *difference* that there could be between a Hurd and Linux is *influence* Linus has it with the kernel FSF don't. Even the Userland code which Linux's small band of kernel programmers have *nothing* to with is named after it. No wonder Richard in not happy.
The great thing...and it is great is that there are *multiple* influences with different ideals, and are driven by different goals within Linux. It makes for a better Linux. Total control by any one group would be a disaster.
Now dual-licensing that just sucks. I hate it. Suns only Motivation is to sell Sun Products and services, and that is what is wrong. I'm more concerned that a *single* company would have such control over the kernel.
I'm interested to see whether either Linux or OpenSolaris will except GPL3 *only* code.
Edited 2007-02-03 16:55
Member since:
2006-03-12
Draconian!? again I don't understand.
By signed binary...you mean I can't create *my* own binary and use it on *my* own system. Now that *is* Draconian
If you are talking about Media companies like RIAA or MPAA which you are. They will *expect* the same quality of service that Microsoft provided in Vista...and unfortunately there is no good answer to that. The solution to that maybe Draconian.
Unfortunately you misunderstood the article. *Patents* you write the code, a company can make changes that are patented...you cannot use them. This nullifies the point of GPL...Its BSD. Companies do not have to share their little slice of code. GPL3 is about closing this loophole.
Now to your offhand insults
===========================
"They don't write much code as far as I can tell"
I suspect your talking about FSF and their contributions to the Linux Kernel. I suspect that you will have a hard time arguing that both *their* code under *their* license is why Linux exists, or that their ideals then and now have grown beyond the small band that makes up the FSF in whole or in part.
"The GPLv3 has free software licensing enthusiasts."
or possibly developers who think those changes within the license are important to them. Seriously after Sun releasing their kernel under GPL3 its a silly comment, and others will license under GPL3 as well. I suspect a certain compiler is bound to fo that way.
Edited 2007-02-03 05:23