“Fans of open source software have been buzzing since Linus Torvalds, creator of the popular Linux operating system, indicated he wouldn’t adopt a new version of the license under which Linux is distributed. Torvalds’ opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world. In an interview via e-mail with Forbes, Torvalds discusses GPLv3, digital rights management and sharks with laser beams. “From where I’m standing, [the GPLv3] says that you suddenly can’t use the software in certain ‘evil ways’ (where evil is defined by the FSF–it doesn’t actually cover the James Bond kind of evil, but if you can see Richard Stallman as a less dashing James Bond, it would be that kind of evil).”
Linus, of course, has the right to disagree with the FSF on whether the license should try to restrict DRM. But when asked “What are a few examples of valid uses?” none of his examples have anything at all to do with DRM.
Encrypting your diary and not giving out the key has nothing to do with DRM, and is not affected by the current GPLv3 draft. Neither is any other aspect of privacy. Neither is digitally signing RPM’s or .deb packages to ensure that they are really put out by the a trusted person or institution.
Linus has repeatedly offered examples of this kind. Why?
Maybe things like ITunes etc. are making valid use of DRM and Linus would rather not point it out in public forum?
Maybe DRM is not for you, that is fine. But I don’t believe there is any “freedom” in making GPLv3 incompatible with DRM entirely.
People should have the right to choose for themselves rather than the FSF making their choices for them.
Edited 2006-03-10 00:19
“People should have the right to choose for themselves rather than the FSF making their choices for them.”
Same applies for DRM …
People should have the right to choose for themselves rather than the DRM making their choices for them.
The bottom line is who do you trust best that it `will do the right thing’? DRM will *force* you to accept it’s policies sooner or later – I’m sure you can feel that. But realistically FSF will *never* force you to use it’s software or adhere to it’s policies if you don’t want to. FSF is all about protecting rights.
The way I see it DRM (the way it’s *actually* going to be used) is inherently illegal. And it’s _despite_ of this fact (instead of `because’ of it), that all this is *our* problem. The government of the USA doesn’t seem to give damn about what is right or what rights citizens have. Actually not many others other than the FSF guys seem to care about this stuff.
When it comes to facing things like DRM I think that it’s better for us to hang from each other, otherwise we will be hanged apart.
Security, privacy, and DRM are all very similar, and in fact they can all be accomplished using identical methods. DRM is all about controlling who can access or use a digital file or program and how they do it. How do you see that making sure you are the only one who can read your digital diary is so completely different that it has nothing to do with DRM? DRM isn’t defined by who enforces it.
That is probably the biggest reason why there has been so much confustion about this issue. I don’t have a problem with the FSF creating a clause in the GPLv3 that Linus would consider to be overly political. Unfortunately, they do need to be careful that when creating such a clause it serves the purpose they intend it for without creating unintended consequences.
I’m not a lawyer or a judge, but from my impression of the clause in question there does seem to be a certain amount of ambiguity. Any ambiguity should be eliminated wherever possible. No one can guess all of the questions that might arise from GPLv3, but the current questions should at least be answered before it is put into use.
Encryption is definitely DRM. Honestly, pretty much anything encrypted is going to be some form of DRM. And this is sort of unfortunate: Many of the older, simpler, DRM mechanisms are actually in the favor of the user and are for privacy (ssh, lvm encryption, etc).
However, when people think of DRM they think of a third party controlled DRM. And this is really what the GPL is out to stop. And the GPL, to my rememberance, doesn’t really have a problem here.
If I read it correctly it says: If you make a DRM enabled program, and you make it GPLv3, then you can’t sue Programmer A when he hacks your DRM or makes a product which can create and read your format.
This is pretty legitimate. And I don’t really see why it’s a problem. Companies will do as they have done, and will always do: They won’t let their favourite son see the md5sum’s of the source for their DRM scheme much less GPL it and let the world see that code.
In my opinion the DRM stuff in GPLv3 is a joke and should probably be removed simply because it’s a bit of bloat. The older GPL’s were so elegant and simple.
In my opinion the DRM stuff in GPLv3 is a joke and should probably be removed simply because it’s a bit of bloat. The older GPL’s were so elegant and simple.
DRM isn’t a major issue yet, but there are some serious DRM moves being considered. If Microsoft offered licencing discounts to computer manufacturers shipping DRM (i.e. raised the price for everyone else), then the IT landscape could change very suddenly. Whoever controlled the DRM would essentially have control of GPL software. (Don’t worry, you can still run Linux — you can get DRM signed copies from us… for now.)
From the article:
I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind. I made source code available to them, they have to make their changes to it available to me. After that, they can fry me with their shark-mounted lasers all they want.
I’m not too worried about shark-mounted lasers, but I am worried about DRM.
And I think most of the previously mentioned GPLv3 bloat is due to trying to make the GPL more compatible with other free/open licenses.
I don’t understand how a hardware manufacturer could use DRM to dictate what software you use to run that hardware… At least, I don’t see how they could do it without bringing a sh*tstorm of lawsuits upon themselves if their chosen system happened to come out of Redmond.
I also don’t see how the GPL would be able to even slow them from doing this. I can understand Linus’ complaint: He wants people to be able to use Linux for things like TiVo and still be able to DRM their poor customers up the wazoo.
It just might be that the best way to get rid of DRM is to just let people jump into it headfirst. In 10 years when people find out that the $8,000 they spent on movies, music, and books was all a waste as they can’t look at any of it anymore; maybe then they’ll realize that they need to READ BEFORE BUYING AND ACTUALLY THINK FOR A CHANGE. Sorry for the caps. Consumer naivity is something I’m passionate about
. “Oh, that company won’t rip us off, we’d stop buying from them if they did!” “Oh, I guess they have ripped me off 5 times before, oh well, I’ll buy this anyway.”
I don’t understand how a hardware manufacturer could use DRM to dictate what software you use to run that hardware… At least, I don’t see how they could do it without bringing a sh*tstorm of lawsuits upon themselves if their chosen system happened to come out of Redmond.
They could call it an anti-piracy measure. And if that didn’t work, they could distribute a cut-down version of Damn Small Linux that mostly works on their PC, at least until the lawsuits are over. I wouldn’t have expected the Macintosh to switch to Intel, and I wouldn’t have expected Netscape and StarOffice to go open source either, before it happened. Things can change quickly in IT.
I also don’t see how the GPL would be able to even slow them from doing this. I can understand Linus’ complaint: He wants people to be able to use Linux for things like TiVo and still be able to DRM their poor customers up the wazoo.
At least there are a decent number of Linux servers around, so there’d be some market for high-end non-DRM PCs. You can but try, and every little bit helps. The alternative is to give up.
It just might be that the best way to get rid of DRM is to just let people jump into it headfirst. In 10 years when people find out that the $8,000 they spent on movies, music, and books was all a waste as they can’t look at any of it anymore; maybe then they’ll realize that they need to READ BEFORE BUYING AND ACTUALLY THINK FOR A CHANGE.
In 10 years, people won’t even be able to imagine that it could possibly be any other way. GPL software would be IT ancient history.
Because all DRM schemes are essentially just PKI and cryptographic signatures put to a particular use and Linus doesn’t believe licenses should in any way limit or constrain the use of software.
Torvalds’ opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world.
Excuse me?
What happened with Mozilla? I don’t see Linux having a 10+ market share… (am I naive saying desktop market is larger than server market?)
Gee, I’d even say Apache and X has higher popularity.
Nothing wrong with articles about Linus… just that the hype thing really keeps bothering me…
Linux has more marketshare than Mozilla(firefox) does. I’m not up on my numbers, but Linux has somewhere inbetween 20-40% server marketshare.(sorry for the large spread) AFAIK.(hopefully someone will post the real number)
As UNIX keeps falling………
I’d agree with you though, Apache has close to 70%. Linux can’t touch that. But Apache isn’t general purpose. I think that’s the difference.
>but Linux has somewhere inbetween 20-40%
lol, just say that Linux has somewhere in between 0%-100% …
It’s not “hype”.
Linux runs on tons of gadgets that don’t run/use X or apache. (Or even GCC, as someone mentioned as an alternative). It is not just the “server market”. I don’t have the numbers but you can’t swing a dead cat by its tail witout knocking over a pile of magazines with articles on “embedded linux”. Linux-based routers, robots, instruments and whatnot.
Apache and X are bad examples in any case as without Linux they would have the marketshare of Solaris
Secondly, “most popular” is not the same as “most installed/used”. People on the street are more likely to know about Linux than any other OSS software.
I have to say Linus impresses me a lot by his pragmatism. He could have drowned in the fanatical politics of the OSS extremists or caved in to big business during the craze, but he didn’t. This, more than the kernel itself IMHO (as there are alternatives), is his biggest contribution. Linux would be nowhere near where it is today without Linus. It would be another minix or HURD.
He could have drowned in the fanatical politics of the OSS extremists or caved in to big business during the craze
Except that the people you talk about are not extremists of anything, nor fanatics like you imply.
The people you feel the urge to call fanatics create a pragmatic license, because the conditions ask for it.
You must be young in computing. The issue is fairly simple : you make GPL code, a business take it, and DRM it, then distribute it. You ask for the code, and they give you the DRM code (and DRM code is your ‘preferred code’). Now you’re stuck. GPLv3 tries pragmatically to address that.
If you believe businesses have ethics and all, you are obviously the fanatic extremist.
I want to add too, that that’s not only big businesses that want Linus and all to cave in, some (blind) users want too, as can be seen with proprietary graphic cards drivers.
The political (what you call fanatical) stance of Linux is pretty strong on that, but you’ll fail to see it for convenience, as you could not then call others fanatics.
Linux would be nowhere near where it is today without Linus
And without the GPL, in case you forgot.
You read too much into my comment
the people you talk about are not extremists of anything, nor fanatics like you imply
If you look closer you see that I was talking specifically about the extremists. I wasn’t implying that all OSS programmers and users are fanatics, but there are some, and they are vocal. I can only begin to imagine the pressure Linus has been under from these guys.
I use mostly OSS software myself, but I use it foremost because it is technically good, not morally good. If you want to give something away for free and help a fellow man, it is good, and you have freedom. When you suddenly become forced to do so, it no longer has anything to do with freedom.
Linus might not use the GPLv3 when it is released, but it will be there for those who wants it. That’s freedom.
I don’t believe businesses have any special ethics, but I do believe that as long as there is competition they will have a much stronger motive (than a OSS project has) to make software that is better than anything else on the market, and to do it fast. Proprietary drivers are an example of where this works and benefits even OSS, so I don’t understand the comment about blind users.
and not a speech writer or something like that. We love you Linus just make sure you don’t push too hard
From the article:
I much prefer things that can be fixed. However, I don’t think that’s part of my GPLv2 contract. I’d rather vote with my personal choices (and my dollars) than by trying to make my software be a “weapon of mass opinion.”
The trouble is, the vast majority of computer users are not tech savvy. Linus, you, and I all like to be able to tinker with things, and we will hopefully choose wisely when it comes time to purchase new computer hardware. The average user doesn’t have a clue about any of this, and if you leave it in their hands, they’ll just buy the cheapest — freedom be damned.
The point isn’t whether or not I have faith in people to do the right thing, but rather, almost all computer users are simply unaware of the difference between a DRM’d BIOS and a free one.
The trouble is, the vast majority of computer users are not tech savvy. Linus, you, and I all like to be able to tinker with things, and we will hopefully choose wisely when it comes time to purchase new computer hardware. The average user doesn’t have a clue about any of this, and if you leave it in their hands, they’ll just buy the cheapest — freedom be damned.
Isn’t that what Communism says? “People are too stupid, so just let them show up for work every day and we (the government) make all the decisions for them.” People will start to take notice when they feel that their rights are being violated, not when you feel their rights are being violated.
It’s just like with the iPod – some people in Congress are starting to catch on to the idea of DRM when they or their kids get an iPod and can’t put music from Napster on it, so they get a little pissed and start asking question. Before it impacted them personally, they didn’t give a rat’s ass .. I guess either they didn’t know about it, or figured it was somebody else’s problem. Once the DRM gets too invasive/inconvenient though, more people will probably start asking more questions.
>> The trouble is, the vast majority of computer users are not tech savvy. Linus, you, and I all like to be able to tinker with things, and we will hopefully choose wisely when it comes time to purchase new computer hardware. The average user doesn’t have a clue about any of this, and if you leave it in their hands, they’ll just buy the cheapest — freedom be damned.
> Isn’t that what Communism says? “People are too stupid, so just let them show up for work every day and we (the government) make all the decisions for them.” People will start to take notice when they feel that their rights are being violated, not when you feel their rights are being violated.
Yes, Communism says that. And the law against statratory rape. And consumer protection law. And employee protection law. And the law that says people can’t sell themselves into slavery.
This is beside the point however, because the GPL doesn’t. The GPL is a licence that programmers can put on their code to allow people to use it in some ways, but not others (as licences generally do). People who accept the licence can still do whatever else they want it is only use of the code that the licence covers.
After reading the article, my opinion about Linus has improved a lot.
He is just an engineer. He shouldn’t be held responsible for other people’s political failures. Why are they so interested in him adopting v3?. What is wrong with v2, what is wrong with the BSD license?. Will the software’s capabilities change because of a change in license?.
It looks like suddenly we all need to turn into politicians, when we are only good at writing software.
Some time ago I agreed with the opinion of some people about Linux being too big to be a one man responsibility. Now I am starting to think I was wrong. When there are too many opinionated people on the same boat, it goes nowhere. Linus may not have been the fastest guy adopting new technologies in the past, but Linux has been there for almost 15 years and hopefully it will stay a lot longer, regarless of the license.
It is his project (which by the way, anyone can fork from) and GPL2 is not that bad…or is it?.
It looks like suddenly we all need to turn into politicians, when we are only good at writing software.
Linus’ stance is political. Claiming that his stance is not political is just a poor excuse for not backing it up.
This comes to mind (some New Zealand history):
During the Apartheid era in South Africa Springbok rugby players were chosen on the basis of race and Maori rugby players were at first not included in tours of South Africa. By the 1970s public protests and political pressure forced the New Zealand Rugby Union to include Maori when they played South Africa.
Prime Minister Robert Muldoon gave permission for a Springbok Rugby tour of New Zealand in 1981. …
<http://www.aucklandcitylibraries.com/general.aspx?ct=738&id=3738>…
(The South Africans excluded blacks from their team, and considered Maaori to be honourary whites for the purposes of the tour.) Those who thought the tour should not have gone ahead were often said to have political views. But it seems to me that the opinion that the tour should have gone ahead was a political view also.
In some people’s minds EVERYTHING is political, even if it wasn’t originally intended to be so.
I personally think Linux is simply being pragmatic. He already has a license that works for him (GPL2), and the new license has to offer him something better before it becomes a viable replacement.
It sounds like he isn’t convinced that it is.
The V3, as described by Linus, looks that it wants to take freedom out of developers.
<QUOTE>You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version.</QUOTE>
This is really crazy, why have these silly restrictions ?
Every software writer should also get his share of freedom, provided he is ready to share the source code.
Is GPL v3 leading towards communism, where some fanatics control what a normal software writer can / cannot code ?
A developer should concentrate only on writing code and not in making sure that others can use another version , why bother him with these restrictions.
I totally agree with Linus and support him on his stand against GPLV3.
Edit: The title is of course “Mr. Torvalds did not make an OS!”
He made a kernel, when are people gona see the difference? When Mr. Torvalds talk about Linux, he only talks about the kernel, not the entire operating system. Together with the misunderstanding that Linux is even close to being the “the most popular open source program in the world”, Mr. Holwerda does not seem to know what he’s talking about.
When it comes to Mr. Torvalds opinions I must say I very much understand him as a fellow scandinavian. There seems to be differences in the european and american way to look at these kind of matters. But.. I do not know enough details to say that I agree with him.
Edited 2006-03-10 02:48
Actually, the kernel is the operating system. Everything else is meant to interact with this “operating system” kernel. Those other programs, like device configuration tools, shells, and GUI desktops, are outside the actual purpose of an OS — to control things like paging, coordinating processes, dealing with hardware interrupts, etc… Linux’s “kernel” is a monolithic program compiled from what is contained and distributed by the Linux OS.
We seem to get too carried away with this distinction between OS and kernel sometimes. The kernel is the actual OS program tailored for your hardware system; the Linux OS, itself, is what you download from kernel.org. Gentoo is what you download from Gentoo.org and spend hours compiling so you can have a GUI desktop on top of your Linux OS. Same with Redhat and Debian…
So Linus (and the Linux contributors) have made an OS from which you are able to tailor an OS kernel program suitable for running on your hardware.
Again, the OS and kernel are one in the same, but when you are talking about a kernel, you are being slightly more specific in relationship to the hardware the kernel was built for.
“Again, the OS and kernel are one in the same, but when you are talking about a kernel, you are being slightly more specific in relationship to the hardware the kernel was built for.”
Your post contains good points but I don’t totally agree.
Well, imagine a bug in the authentication layer of system xyz with kernel level user profiles encryption: when the administrator create an user/passwor couple the wizard is bogus and just ignore the password; when any user login the procedure is bogus and just ignore the password.
In the two cases the kernel behaves properly doing user profiles encryption derivating the key from the empty password (if the crypto primitive has no weak keys they would not be a reason to integrate a procedure to point out that a strange key is provided, since all the keys should give provably the same security, or at least the required minimum security, so the control should logically NOT be integrated there since it would be an arbitrary and unproper crippling of the keyspace) and the users are authenticated without noticing something wrong… but the overeall security of this is 0!
Well, I would call those bugs “Operating System bugs”, not “Kernel bugs” (the kernel is behaving in the correct way) since those wizards are external to the kernel.
And I would not call them “Application bugs” since without a basic set of those software I would practically not able to do anything with the kernel.
I think that application and operating system definitions should be quite elastic and that a definition of operating system should embed at least a little bunch of non-kernel software that is *usually* provided even to do the most basic things with the machine (such as i.e. the login).
So, talking about Linux I’m talking about the various kernels, talking about GNU/Linux OS i’m talking about a kernel and a bunch of applications that *usually* let me to do something useful with it. However, I must admit that the distinction is quite arbitrary and elastic since the various implication of the *usually* term.
Actually, the kernel is the operating system
Man, some people have enough nerves to spout such BS. Look, if it’s called kernel, that’s not because it’s an OS.
Everything else is meant to interact with this “operating system” kernel
No, it’s a kernel, not an OS. An OS kernel does not mean anything. The things you interact with are the OS, the OS interacts with the kernel.
Those other programs, like device configuration tools, shells, and GUI desktops, are outside the actual purpose of an OS
They are above the OS right, but shells can still be part of the OS, GUI desktops too.
Linux’s “kernel” is a monolithic program compiled from what is contained and distributed by the Linux OS
Do you even understand what you write ? I can’t make sense of what you say here.
Being so confusing, I guess you don’t understand it as well.
We seem to get too carried away with this distinction between OS and kernel sometimes
No, but we just have to correct people that mix the two to make their wrong point.
The kernel is the actual OS program tailored for your hardware system
No, the kernel is not the OS of anything. The kernel just will not interact by itself with your hardware.
the Linux OS, itself, is what you download from kernel.org
No, it’s not the Linux OS, it’s called the Linux kernel on the site, the site is named kernel.org for a reason, Linus calls it the Linux kernel.
But strangely enough, you feel you know better than all these people.
So Linus (and the Linux contributors) have made an OS from which you are able to tailor an OS kernel program suitable for running on your hardware
I hope you don’t believe such nonsense.
Again, the OS and kernel are one in the same
No they’re not. One was done by the FSF BTW, not by Linus.
but when you are talking about a kernel, you are being slightly more specific in relationship to the hardware the kernel was built for
No, we are talking about the thing on which the OS sits.
I will admit that the term “operating system” stems somewhat further in the broader case than what you find from kernel.org, however, what Linus provides at kernel.org is by all definitions an operating system. When concerning Linux as an individual, I find my distinctions quite appropriate.
Linus originally posted that he was “doing a (free) operating system” and with that operating system, he originally only intended on supporting very specific hardware. That of course grew out of proportion — Linux’s portability that is — and for this reason the definitions fall into place by themselves.
Linux is an operating system; I’m not sure how that can be argued. Sure, by itself this kernel is not very usable, but this kernel is still the fundamental definition of an OS. I speak in the most conservative terms; perhaps that’s my scientific side shining through. Given that may be the case, sorry if I threw you for a loop. You actually sounded abrasively disturbed. I hope I didn’t come off as being too pedantic. I honestly believe what I said is true, in theory, of Linux. Then again, I can’t say I totally agree with the Linux design — an old progeny of Tanenbaum here — but forgive me, because that is entirely off topic.
I think others have explained that you are as wron as you can get. Just to make it clear – try starting of with a computer with a clean harddrive, a copy of the latest kernel from kernel.org on your favourite media and make them work together. You can use any intermediate tools you like, but you can only put the kernel on the harddrive. Then make the machine boot from that harddrive. What useful can you do with that machine? Even if you put grub or some other bootloader on it, would *you* then be able to use it?
abhaysahai wrote:
> This is really crazy, why have these silly restrictions ?
I wouldn’t take Linus’s words on this as the definitive truth. Rather, you might have a look at the actual draft of GPLv3 before making up your mind so quick.
> Is GPL v3 leading towards communism, where some fanatics [snip]
Note, we’re not talking about a form of government, we’re talking about a model for software licensing.
> I totally agree with Linus and support him on his stand against GPLV3.
Recall, Linus was only commenting on the GPLv3 *draft* as it currently stands. There is no GPLv3 yet.
Edited 2006-03-10 03:31
Torvalds’ opinion matters because his program is by far the most popular open source program in the world.
As has been pointed out, this is a rather silly statement, but nobody’s mentioned the real most popular one yet: gcc. It compiles linux, almost all the software that comes with typical linux distros, same thing for the bsd world, and os x. Nothing could possibly top that unless it wasn’t written in a language that gcc compiles :p
I’ve also got to propose OpenSSH for higher honours. It runs on most linuxes (maybe not embedded or certain cluster configs?) but in so many more places as well. I’m guessing it’s got higher distribution than the linux kernel.
I see ‘linux’ (and in this sense, you have to start merging the definition of ‘linux’ to mean the kernel and everything that runs on top of it because thats how the general public sees ‘linux’) as the most popular OSS project simply because EVERYONE knows of it.
My grandparents even know of linux. They also know of Redhat (from a stock market perspective). You could ask them about apache, openssh, *bsd or firefox (firefox and ie are just ‘the internet’ for most people) and they would not have a clue what you where referring to. If you where to mention linux on the other hand, my grandfather could tell you all about redhats stocks.
When you use the term ‘popular’ you are not talking about computer geeks… we only make up a small fraction of the populace. Now if they where to use the phrase “within the geek community”… then sure… I could see something else being more ‘popular’
Alright granted, we’re just arguing about semantics.
When I say “popular”, I’m talking about the geek world (cause that’s all I really care about) and when I say “most used” I count the linux kernel as a use of gcc because it couldn’t exist without gcc. At least not without a replacement, but that’s a little beside the point.
So I guess it just depends on what the original post was referring to. I think gcc is the most important piece of free software but your take on it make sense too.
I know lots of people who use Linux yet have never used gcc. Hell I use Linux every day and only very rarely use gcc. I use software built with gcc, but rarely actually gcc.
“I know lots of people who use Linux yet have never used gcc. Hell I use Linux every day and only very rarely use gcc. I use software built with gcc, but rarely actually gcc.”
It doesn’t matter that you don’t personally use GCC directly. It matters that you use software that was built with GCC. So, by extension, you use GCC. And that software that you use and love would not exist without GCC.
That’s how important GCC really is.
Only programmers use GCC directly, not end users. But programmers would not be able to deliver the great open source software that end users know and love without a great compiler collection like GCC.
Other props have to be given to GDB, Make, Automake, and Configure, all essential programming tools, which are also huge pieces to the free/open source software puzzle.
It’s all there, whether you’re a programmer or not.
“As has been pointed out, this is a rather silly statement, but nobody’s mentioned the real most popular one yet: gcc. It compiles linux, almost all the software that comes with typical linux distros, same thing for the bsd world, and os x. Nothing could possibly top that unless it wasn’t written in a language that gcc compiles :p “
I agree with this 10,000 percent. GCC arguably has to be the single most important piece of free/Open Source software in existence.
Yes, Linus Torvalds and his Linux kernel, along with Apache, FireFox, Eclipse, and many others, all get the headlines.
But GCC is pervasive. It’s literally everywhere, and is ultimately at the heart most open source software, and is often distributed with propietary software (Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX, and OS-X usually ship it). The Linux kernel itself, BSD, GTK, QT, Gnome, KDE, GnuCash, Apache, GIMP, AbiWord, Perl, Python, Jikes, OpenOffice, Mozilla/FireFox, and many, many others, all are built on top of GCC at one point or another.
While the C compiler of GCC may not turn out as efficient code as a cpu specific compiler (like Intel’s), but it’s still fast. Plus GCC runs on pretty much all hardware platforms.
Finally, GCC, AFAIK, was the first project of GNU and the FSF, and gained traction immediately, long before there was a GNU/Linux.
GCC is a remarkable acheivement.
The reason I’m giving these big props is because GCC is often sadly overlooked, while Linus Torvalds and the Linux kernel get all the glory. Richard Stallman (love him or hate him for his ideals), along with all the FSF devs, deserve major credit.
– Linux != Operating System
– Stallman needs to make a better case for GPL3, from my vantage point, i don’t care if Linux remains GPL2. Its still going to be Free Software, unless Stallman (or someone else) can make a better case.
– torn on the dishwasher/DVR issue. Seems like consumer devices shouldn’t be expected to be open source, but keeping it closed just holds back potential
– i wish linus were a bit more conscience of the ethical issues. i don’t expect him to be an advocate like Stallman, but i would’ve thought the BitKeeper debacle would’ve humbled him a little.
“You still have to give source code back, but it crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version,” according to Torvalds.
Wouldn’t this make making an ASIC from an GPLv3 core impossible? Not just nit-picking here but I’ve been skimming through http://www.OpenCores.org lately, and with Sun open-sourcing their Niagara core (why not any of the earlier ones though?), I was actually thinking about starting an open-source core myself.
IANAL and I haven’t read the actual license since legalese makes me nauseous.
What is FOSS to you? Linus seems to think that it is just the idea that you must share and share alike. This is itself noble and GPLv2 uses that idea as its cornerstone. Still, Linus claims to be practical and that he is not interested in politics. Unfortunately, he does so at his own (and perhaps our own) peril. What is FOSS if it can no longer be installed or run by a user? DRM is a run-around the idea of share-and-share-alike because it presents a case where ONLY the original distributor can make installable/runnable versions of software. This is what the GPLv3 is attempting to address. Doesn’t software have the right to not only be seen, known and modified — but also installed and run by the user? How is one being practical if they don’t address that issue? If we don’t answer this question satisfactorily, we may see decades of our hard work and commitment in the name of society co-opted and barred from us in a practical way.
That said, I’m not convinced about the GPLv3 draft either but I find it heartening that the FSF is trying to address a very important and practical — albeit charged — issue.
Now notice how I didn’t use any colorful words like “evil” or “communist” or any other ad hominem argument. There are important questions involved and we would do well to answer them through honest reasoning and in light of our shared values. When we ask what we want the world to be we should be prepared to have to answer many questions that go beyond what we would normally want to answer. This is not “playing politics” — it is being honest to the notion that sometimes difficult questions must be addressed and in doing so we must examine and expose our values. Linus’ relevance is diminished when he refuses to do so.
Edited 2006-03-10 06:03
I would say that Richard Stallman and the FSF did not make the whole OS either. Building the OS Linux was a colaborative work by all the following projects. some even (horrors) PROPRIETARY.
Linus Torvalds and the Kernel project.
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.
KDE Desktop environment project (Uses PROPRIETARY QT Toolkit).
X Consortuium.
GNOME Desktop environment.
Mozilla Browser Project.
TrollTech (for QT GUI Toolkit (PRPORIETARY)).
GIMP Project (for the standard Graphics authoring
program under Linux and the GTK1 and 2 GUI Toolkits).
and other F/OSS projects too numerous to list let alone add to the name as Mr.Stallman demands of his projects.
Oh, And don’t tell me that QT is not proproetary because there is a version under the GPL. That version still carries all the trademark and copyright notice requirements that the proprietary version does and is basically used as a “loss leader” for advertizing the proprietary version.
I would say that Richard Stallman and the FSF did not make the whole OS either
Of course they did. I think you don’t understand what the OS is, that’s all.
Building the OS Linux was a colaborative work by all the following projects. some even (horrors) PROPRIETARY
Wrong, and anyway, the only proprietary thing you cited is Qt, and it’s not the proprietary version that KDE uses, sorry.
You can talk about loss leader all you want, but the fact is that KDE uses the GPL Qt version.
BTW, the kernel is not part of the OS. GNU works on more than Linux, and it’s still an OS. The GNU OS works without KDE, without X, without Mozilla, without GIMP, or every other program you can think of, so stop your nonsense please.
I have an automated GNU/Linux OS fully operational that have nothing of these. Try to know what you’re talking about please.
I would say that Richard Stallman and the FSF did not make the whole OS either.
I never made such claim either, so why is this addressed to me?
GPL this and GPL that – someone mentioned Sharks With Lasers On Their Heads. Where are they?
🙂
GPL this and GPL that – someone mentioned Sharks With Lasers On Their Heads. Where are they?
I think this is Linus’ analogy for DRM PCs. I think he’s saying don’t worry, it will never happen.
This is an observation based on Linus attitude and my personnal experience. Some people resent being associated with others so much so that they are whilling to self destruct themself entirely to prove others are wrong. In doing so destoying the life and projects and years of hard work.
The Linux kernel is actually where it is because of the GPL. The GPL is the creation of Stallman and the FSF , linus resent that fact and is on a path to destroy is own creation and achievment just so that he can say , I told you that the GPL whas less relevant then my Linux kernel.
The problem is that with all is talk all he does is pointing out exactly where the flaws in V2 are , and the FSF are not trying to close them for fun , there is a real problem with evolution of software when one cant modify it , change it or upgrade it.
There is a saying that say if it aint broke dont change it , V2 is broken , Linus is letting is self destruction and relevance getting in the way of achieving repair.
Its a classic case of pride getting in the way of two guys who normally should be the best friend in the world.
Without Linux the FSF and GPL probably would not be as big.
Without the GPL and FSF the Linux kernel probably would not be as big too and still relevant today.
All this will do is make the FSF irrelevant and make the linux kernel irrelevant just the same. Nothing good or interesting in that.
The problem is that with all is talk all he does is pointing out exactly where the flaws in V2 are , and the FSF are not trying to close them for fun , there is a real problem with evolution of software when one cant modify it , change it or upgrade it
I agree.
There is a saying that say if it aint broke dont change it , V2 is broken , Linus is letting is self destruction and relevance getting in the way of achieving repair
I don’t think so. You could have said the same with BitKeeper. That’s just that Linus will perhaps be caught in the problem and will have to change too late.
Perhaps he won’t even admit he was wrong, like in the BitKeeper case. People where calling RMS fanatic too with the BitKeeper case, but pragmatists (me included) saw right away he was right. Sometimes, what Linus calls pragmatism is really just laziness.
Without Linux the FSF and GPL probably would not be as big.
Without the GPL and FSF the Linux kernel probably would not be as big too and still relevant today
I agree !
All this will do is make the FSF irrelevant and make the linux kernel irrelevant just the same. Nothing good or interesting in that
I don’t think so, as the Linux kernel will still be GPL, which is still FSF license. This won’t change a thing, except when a company starts to give back only DRMed modifications they’ve done to the Linux kernel, making them impossible to access to the kernel devs.
“You could have said the same with BitKeeper.”
No , because Bitkeeper whas not part of the Linux kernel. It whas a tool that helped build it. But its a good example that if not given from the start the developper will take away rights to control and make more profits and close evolution from others as time advance.
“except when a company starts to give back only DRMed modifications they’ve done to the Linux kernel, making them impossible to access to the kernel devs.”
Which would stop evolution and take away the rights of users , developpers and teacher. If laws stayed the same and new way of taking over control where not created or permitted , then the relevance would stay the same. If you dont take into account new ways and possibilities to close code and stop it from heppening , then most likely people will exploit this flaw to the maximum. Just look at everything in the computer industry , everything started open Source until someone decided to close is derivative. It happened to all previous Open Source and Free software license , heck it even started on the GPL.
The GPL is/whas great because no one can close the source code , the Linux kernel whas great because it is/whas GPL , if one can close the code why it any better then the other license , why contribute to it , why participate in its evolution if one can take it all waya only for himself.
Why are people so hung up on politics? Linus Torvalds comes over as a sunny, practical-minded person who’d like to extend the maximum freedoms to other people on the basis that they will extend the same freedoms (or courtesy) to him. That’s not being naive or confused – how arrogant to think so – but the basis for a decent, happy life.
No one asks what democratic credentials the FSF has that entitle it to speak on behalf of others. How may members does it have? No one asks why the FSF fails to provide any real-world projections of the impact of its proposals, like how many jobs and livelihoolds might be lost (or created, if you think that). Any other outfit that was this vague on detail while saying that disagreeing with them was morally wrong would be shown the door.
Most folks just want to get on with life without being coopted into making statements about capitalism, socialism or any other -ism. If the GPLv3 is forced through “as is” and turns out to be too restrictive, ordinary users will dump Linux in huge numbers and the whole project will split, most likely. Thank heavens there are still the BSDs for those who don’t want the politics and all the excitement of two-hour lectures about software morality.
No one asks what democratic credentials the FSF has that entitle it to speak on behalf of others
The FSF does not do that, and allows you to comment on their draft license.
If you still question the credentials of the FSF, I guess you are not able to comment here.
No one asks why the FSF fails to provide any real-world projections of the impact of its proposals, like how many jobs and livelihoolds might be lost (or created, if you think that)
Because the FSF just provides a license. They’re not responsible for lives lost because you changed the license on your product to GPLv3 (if you believe such BS anyway).
BTW, the FSF did not force anyone to do anything, that’s just Linus that says he won’t use GPLv3. You invented all the rest.
If the GPLv3 is forced through “as is” and turns out to be too restrictive, ordinary users will dump Linux in huge numbers and the whole project will split, most likely
How did you arrive to such a stupid conclusion ? Do you assume that “ordinary users” “in huge numbers” want DRM ? Are you insane or have an agenda to say such stupid things ? And why the project would split because of the license ?!!!
Thank heavens there are still the BSDs for those who don’t want the politics and all the excitement of two-hour lectures about software morality
Of course there is. I’ll stick with Linux thanks, especially since BSD kernels don’t provide half the necessary features used today on my graphical DE Gnome and KDE.
Because the FSF just provides a license. They’re not responsible for lives lost because you changed the license on your product to GPLv3 (if you believe such BS anyway).
The FSF has immense influence and knows how to use it. What you are suggesting is power without responsibility. In most other spheres of life, the FSF would be expected to produce a much more rigorous explanation of its proposals. When jobs and livelihoods are on the line, saying “we are morally right tough luck no details needed” is wrong in itself.
I don’t like DRM either which smacks of Big Brother and exploitation. However, for me Linus Torvalds’ approach is both more congenial and more realistic that the GPLv3 as presently drafted. Perhaps that draft will change, since most folks seem to find it very hard to understand – not a good thing in a legal document. Who knows.
As for Linux splitting up into rival camps, that is extremely easy to see. I suspect that some folks would like nothing more than to get rid of the “Torvalds kernel”.
I would have thought it impossible, but it seems there’s something Linus hasn’t understood w.r.t. GPLv3.
At least… when I look at the “dear diary” example, there’s absolutely noting in the GPLv3 draft, which prevents any technology from being used for security.
Linus is right that “trusted” computing will be a useful security tool for this kind of application, but it all boils down to: Who controls the keys?!
And in this example the owner of the diary would have just as good and maybe even better security if (s)he controlled the keys themself. But thats’ not the case with the TCG. The plan is to embed keys in the hardware which is controlled only by the producer of the hardware. Such keys are completely useless for the “dear diary” example, but they ARE useful for DRM.
Everybody should read, what EFF has to say:
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php
QUOTE
“People should have the right to choose for themselves rather than the FSF making their choices for them.”
UNQUOTE
Dear Mr Torvalds,
I totally agree with you, and hope you will allow it that somebody else takes your GPL v2 kernel and licence it as a GPL v3 kernel. In that way, distributions can ship two kernels (now they already ship 2.4 and 2.6 together) so we as users can make a CHOICE of our own.
That said, I hope you and RMS can find a way to straighten tis out.
Another way of saying the same thing: I don’t want to make my software be “activist.” I try to make it technically as good as possible and let that part speak for itself. I don’t want it to make politics.
Go Linus! Get down with your bad self!
djangoxl wrote:
> and hope you will allow it that somebody else takes
> your GPL v2 kernel and licence it as a GPL v3 kernel.
Note that Linux is not run like GNU projects, in that Linus doesn’t hold full copyright like the FSF does for their projects. When you contribute code to GNU software, you give copyright to the FSF. This is for a number of reasons, one of which is, if they ever have to go to court to defend their copyright and licensing terms, they can. Another benefit of posessing the copyright yourself is that you can change the licensing terms as you see fit (i.e. changing to GPLv3 when the time comes).
For projects like Linux, copyright is held between all the folks who’ve contributed code over the years. To change the license, you’d have to get permission from all of them.
One last thing to pay attention to: often, in the licensing terms for a piece of software, you’ll see “GPLv2 or any later version, at your option”. Linux specifies only GPLv2.
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-drm
From my (pro-GPLv3) viewpoint, the arguments seem to be:
For GPLv3:
> It would prevent GPL code from being used to lock people into DRM. And, it would be a bad thing if people were locked into DRM — bad for the people who were locked in, and particularly bad for those who like GPL code.
Against GPLv3:
> It would stop people from using encription, e.g. for privacy or authentication.
It would only stop people from locking GPLv3 programs with DRM, any other use of encryption is fine. GPLv3 programs can still use encryption for privacy or authentication.
> It’s a political issue, so it shouldn’t be dealt with by the GPL.
Regardless of whether it’s a political issue, it’s certainly a practical issue.
> It’s a political issue, and I hate politics.
If you really hate politics, then I can assume you won’t be voting in the next elections. But I suggest you should. Politics has practical implications.
> The FSF shouldn’t force people to use the GPLv3, so I won’t use it.
Then you’re obviously not being forced.
> It’s a hardware issue — it’s taking away companies rights to do what they want with their hardware.
Companies can still make DRM hardware, they just can’t lock GPLv3 code into it.
> People might lose their jobs and livelihoods.
Only if their jobs and livelihoods are based on locking users into DRM with GPL code — and they’ll still have the existing GPLv2 code to work with.
> People should be allowed to lock themselves into DRM if they want to.
They can still do it with non-GPL code, or existing GPLv2 code.
> It’s taking away people’s rights, so it’s Communist, or Big Brother.
It’s only taking away the right to use someone else’s GPLv3 code to lock people into DRM, and locking people into DRM really would be Communist or Big Brother.
> DRM PCs will probably never happen anyway, or if they do, someone else will fix it.
Better to be prepared.
> DRM PCs will probably happen anyway, so it’s not worth trying to stop it.
Better to try. It’s worth trying. And at least GPLv3 code won’t be contributing to the problem.
> It’s too complicated and/or badly worded.
I agree. Fortunately it’s only a draft, and open for submissions.
linus Truvolds says:
“If you have a device that has software in it (and most devices do, these days), the FSF wants normal users to be able to upgrade that software. Now, sometimes it’s simply not technically possible. But sometimes the software can be upgraded, but the hardware limits it on purpose so that the owner of the hardware cannot do so–only the vendor can. I think that’s pretty nasty myself. I much prefer things that can be fixed. However, I don’t think that’s part of my GPLv2 contract.”
What’s confusing to me if something is under the GPLv2 I should be able to modify it. Everything has some form of restriction to it that’s what contracts are for that enables freedom of choice. But the GPLv2 restrictions allow me to modify the source code.
The GPLv2 stipulates that if I have a GPLv2 contracted product it must be made available with GPLv2 contract intact to the public for consumption. I think I read that right.
Edited 2006-03-12 13:32
What’s confusing to me if something is under the GPLv2 I should be able to modify it. Everything has some form of restriction to it that’s what contracts are for that enables freedom of choice. But the GPLv2 restrictions allow me to modify the source code.
The GPLv2 stipulates that if I have a GPLv2 contracted product it must be made available with GPLv2 contract intact to the public for consumption. I think I read that right.
The problem is that the GPLv2 doesn’t specifically state that when you give back the source for a derived work, you also need to supply any DRM codes needed to make it run. I would have thought that any DRM codes needed to make the program run would be part of the source, since a compiled program is surely not complete if it doesn’t actually run, but TiVo thinks otherwise. So you can get the source (without the DRM codes) but you can’t run it on anything, which somewhat defeats the purpose.
The concern is that this idea will catch on, and other companies could use GPL code to lock people into DRM. This is particularly concerning because there seems to be a push to incorporate DRM into standard PCs.