Alan Cox talks about cooperation with hardware vendors, patent law, microkernels, and GPLv3: "I think [the MS-Novell deal] is a bad idea and that Novell are going to get stung by the GPLv3, and rightfully so. The license is designed to keep the software free, if it fails to do this then it needs fixing, so GPLv3 hopefully will fix this flaw."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-11
Since you plainly discard the idea of user freedom as "FSF dogma", you will never hear a "valid reason". You left nothing to chance here, well done.
Member since:2006-09-12
Apart from the bit about the beer, most of that interview went way over my head 
The thing that bugs me most about GPLv3 though, is whether it is possible that the FSF might have outsmarted themselves.
What TiVo did may have been in compliance with the letter of the law regarding GPLv2, but was also definitely against the spirit and intent of the GPLv2. Exactly the same may be said for the Novell and similar deals. I can understand the FSF's frustration and anger.
Are we sure that the GPLv3 doesn't have any loopholes at all to exploit? Is it now battened down so tight as to restrict "normal" use? If Novell do get "bitten" will they not just drop their support for Linux? Are they too committed to be able to change at this point? Could they adopt BSD instead? Will the GPLv3 cause a mass migration of business away from GPL'd software? What then?
I'm concerned. I would appreciate if someone could alleviate that concern.
Edited 2007-06-11 09:50
Member since:2005-07-13
When did you or the FSF become the sole arbiters of judging user freedom? The four freedoms are simply one interpretation. My user freedom is choice in the tools I use, I support FLOSS because I believe it is important in assuring my choices continue to exist, but I reserve the right to use nasty, evil proprietary software when I've got to get something done that I can't realistically achieve with my OSS alternatives.
RMS on the other hand, has stated time and time again that he would much rather use sub-par free software than better capable proprietary options. Fine for him, but not for me. For my personal requirements, binding myself in philosophical chains and restricting my options and ability to work effectively is not user freedom. But that's just my opinion.
The point I was making is that people harping on Linus to adopt v3 make their arguments from their own personal points of view, as you did above by choosing to define the concept of user freedom to match your own opinion. Linus has rejected FSF philosophy, and has always stated right from the beginning that the GPL was selected for practical reasons. So with that in mind, if people want Linus to seriously consider v3, they need to quit posturing around the four freedoms and put it into terms relative to what *he* is trying to achieve, not the FSF. So in other words, what are the practical benefits for the linux kernel devs to adopt v3? Right now, nothing concrete that anybody has been able to articulate.
Member since:
2005-07-13
This topic actually came up on LKML today. Here's an email from Linus on the topic:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > the final draft of GPLv3.
I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the
disaster that were the earlier drafts.
I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.
I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
"tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument
seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push
the GPLv3).
Linus
So basically, instead of people asking why Linus doesn't intend to push for v3, they should really ask why should he. Nobody has really given a single, valid reason yet that doesn't wrap itself in FSF dogma.
Although interestingly, in another email, Linus did mention that if Sun goes through with v3, that would at least create a point of consideration for migrating the license so that there wouldn't be two major kernels with incompatible licensing. Pragmatic to the end. Wonder how Sun would feel about that?