A lengthy debate that began with a suggestion to dual license the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 continues on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Throughout the ongoing thread Linux creator Linus Torvalds has spoken out on the GPLv2, the upcoming GPLv3, the BSD license, Tivo, the Free Software Foundation, and much more. During the discussion, he was asked we he chose the GPLv2 over the BSD license when he's obviously not a big fan of the FSF.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-30
Member since:2005-07-08
Tivo distributes modified GPL software when selling their devices. You cannot modify and run that software on the device. The GPL intends to make sure GPL-ed software can be modified and run. The only way it can be run now is to have a modified Tivo-device without the locking. It cannot be run on the Tivo device as bought. Linus thinks that is OK, the FSF thinks it's not, and they are authoring the license, so they wrote v3. The GPLv3 would protect software better from a user's point of view, so I am all for it.
Member since:2006-08-26
But Linus is right when he points out that RMS is trying to extend a software license to cover hardware. That's not right, and it's likely to create problems.
Distribution has always been a central concern of the GPL. The Tivo device is a means of distribution. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that if Tivo wants to distribute someone else's GPLv3 software, Tivo must agree to the distribution terms or just not distribute the software. What's not right about that? "Creating problems" does not mean much. Many good things are done that end up creating problems. I may sign up for a tough class that will create problems for myself, but that fact alone does not at all throw my decision into doubt.
GPLv3 uses a software license to impose conditions on the hardware that the software runs on. Sony used a rootkit to impose conditions on computers that audio CDs were played on. In both cases, the copyright for one element is being abused to control the behavior of systems which are NOT under that copyright.
This is too simplistic an attempt at associating the GPLv3 with a notorious event by finding something in common. It's easy to come up with such arguments. E.g., the U.S. used power to defeat the Axis powers. Japan used power to commit genocide in China. In both cases, the laws of one nation are being used to control the behavior of nations which are not under their laws. The laws of one country should not have ANY effect on the behavior of other nations.
Is hardware somehow more sacred than nations?
We also could as easily find all the ways that the rootkit is worse. It relied upon deception, done on a machine having absolutely no pre-planned connection to the rootkit (unlike the means of distribution that a Tivo device is), etc.
We are probably ignoring some other important cases where copyright influences hardware behavior. Perhaps those who are more familiar with proprietary systems than I am can recall some examples. In any case, I don't see how the GPLv3 is anything special in this way, and, again, it is merely a choice that anyone, of course, is entirely free to ignore.
Moreover, there are the four freedoms that any GPL is designed to promote. Why must they be sacrificed in order to placate some manufacturer? The FSF would fail in its mission if it had not responded to Tivoization by banning at least some (but not all, it turns out) forms of it in the GPLv3.
Member since:2006-09-16
TiVo has agreed to, and obeys, the terms of the GPL for all of the software they distribute using that license. It is not right to apply those terms to the other software, under different licenses, which they also distribute in the same box. Copyright law distinguishes aggregation from derived works.
TiVo distributes the Linux kernel under the GPL. Because the GPL applies to the kernel, they also license the drivers that they wrote under the GPL. The drivers are linked, making them derived works of the kernel.
Other software is included in the box. That software is not licensed under the GPL. I would like it to be, but there is no legal obligation for TiVo to license separate programs under the GPL because they happen to run under Linux. Those programs are merely aggregated with the kernel, which does not make them derived works.
It would be counter-productive to require all software on a computer running Linux to use the GPL. No current Linux distribution would qualify. My Debian systems may run only freely-licensed software, but the GPL is not the only free license. Such a requirement would also fail in court. Copyright law understands derivation, not contagion.
The ends do not justify the means. Coercion is bad when Sony does it, and when the FSF does it. Version 2 of the GPL does not coerce, because it applies only to the software that the license is attached to. Accept or decline the license, and it only affects the program itself, not system it runs on. Sony's copyright on some music does not give them the right to dictate the operation of the device I play the music on. The FSF's copyright on gcc does not give them the right dictate how I manage keys on my hardware. The copyright on the music applies ONLY to the music, and not the player. The copyright on a program applies ONLY to the program, and not the hardware it runs on.
I agree with the goals of the FSF, but think that they've made a tactical blunder with the DRM portion of GPLv3. The other changes are worthwhile improvements.
Using a license to promote the freedom of the licensed object is great. Using a license to promote freedom of other things which come in contact with the licensed object steps over the line. Version 2 of the GPL stays firmly on the right side of the line, and recognizes that while world peace and ending hunger are worthwhile goals, restricting the USE of software in fact reduces freedom. It covers only distribution, not use. There are better ways to end hunger, and better ways to promote open hardware.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-09-16
He clarified that. The *design* of the hardware belongs to TiVo, and is not under the GPL. Some of the software included with the product is under the GPL, some is under other licenses.
The fact that GPL software is included does not put the other software or the design of the hardware under the GPL. RMS may want all software to be under the GPL, but copyright law doesn't work that way. It is perfectly legal to include (aggregate) GPL and non-GPL software on the same system.
If you buy a TiVo, you own it. You can get the source for the kernel. You can modify the kernel. Run that kernel on your own hardware design, or hack your TiVo so that it will run unsigned code. But TiVo is NOT obligated to provide you with the source for the hardware design, or the other code, or anything else.
I don't own a TiVo, because I dislike closed hardware. That's why I use MythTV. But Linus is right when he points out that RMS is trying to extend a software license to cover hardware. That's not right, and it's likely to create problems.
GPLv3 uses a software license to impose conditions on the hardware that the software runs on. Sony used a rootkit to impose conditions on computers that audio CDs were played on. In both cases, the copyright for one element is being abused to control the behavior of systems which are NOT under that copyright. The copyright on the music on a CD should not have ANY effect on the system it is played on, and the copyright on a program should not have ANY effect on hardware it runs on.