Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:15 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Linus Torvalds, father of the Linux kernel, has fleshed out his unhappiness with GPLv3 in three recent posts on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Torvalds previously stated that the kernel will remain under the licensing terms of GPLv2. Yesterday, Torvalds offered his opinion as to where the battle over DRM should take place.
Thread beginning with comment 92397
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Torvalds is wrong
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 15:22 UTC
msundman
Member since:
2005-07-06

> The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content).
> So the GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the
> _software_ is concerned.

Once again Torvalds is clueless.
He thinks that only the source concerns the software. That's BS! The environment in which the software runs also very much concerns the software.

Let's say I make a hardware product. I'm lazy and want to use existing code, so I include some GPLed software in the control program for my product. However, I don't want to let anyone else use the software I combined with the GPLed software, but the GPL still says I have to release my source if I want to use it with the other GPLed source. So I just make the hardware run only software signed by me. That way I can give away my software, and although people would be able to modify my GPLed software it's of no use since they can't run the modified software anywhere (that is, unless they actually reverse engineer my hardware and duplicate it, which could be very unrealistic).

No, I'm all for GPL 3 excluding such use of GPLed software. Either one has to release everything needed to run a modified version of the software, or use another license.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Torvalds is wrong
by Wrawrat on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:10 in reply to "Torvalds is wrong"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Good point, but it doesn't make Torvalds wrong. He is just taking a pragmatical approach, trying to use the best from DRM instead of going in a rampage against.

Like I have mentioned in a previous post, the free software movement could be seriously halted if next-gen hardware requires a trusted OS. There are fewer FS developers familiar with the creation of computer hardware. It's not only a matter of knowing VHDL/Verilog. Since the only requirement for booting is likely to be the kernel, you could possibly run your GPLv3 software on a GPLv2 Linux until the works on a free platforms is done...

I believe that was Linus' point. Saying that he is clueless is rather harsh. His vision is not limited to ideologies. And he always looked like an OSS advocate to me (in contrast to a FS/GNU/RMS one)...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Torvalds is wrong
by msundman on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 16:34 in reply to "RE: Torvalds is wrong"
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> Good point, but it doesn't make Torvalds wrong.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. He is indeed wrong when he says "So the GPL[v2] already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is concerned."
Had he said "source code" instead of "software" then that statement would have been more correct.

> His vision is not limited to ideologies.

Actually I think his vision is limited to the tip of his nose, and that he is _utterly_ clueless when it comes to many things (e.g. security), but let's not get distracted from the issue at hand. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2