GPLv3 is just "fixed" GPLv2 [LWN.net]

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:08 UTC (Wed) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link]

>the kernel developers wrote the other 7 million lines of code. Thus what matters mostly is the Linux kernel contributors' view on this issue.
>(and if you claim the FSF wrote the toolchain that's not true anymore either, while the FSF has the copyrights assigned, both glibc and gcc was largely written and is being written and maintained by non-FSF people.)

What makes someone a Linux Hacker? Right, if he contributes to linux.
What makes someone a GNU Hacker? Right, if he contributes to GNU software.
If the GNU or Linux hacker is employed by any IT company or if he does it in his spare time or if i believes in the words of Linus Torvalds or in the words of the FSF doesn't make any difference. If he contributes to Linux, he is a Linux Hacker and the result will always be linux and if he contribute to GNU he is a GNU Hacker and the result will always be GNU.

So yes, GNU is much larger than Linux.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 21:54 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

What makes someone a Linux Hacker? Right, if he contributes to linux.
What makes someone a GNU Hacker? Right, if he contributes to GNU software.

Right. GNU is a tiny amount of code contributed for/by the FSF, plus everything they can freely share the source code to. In that sense, GNU is truly larger than Linux. But what the FSF has really contributed is a small fraction of that.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 8:15 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

The kernel has a GPLv2-only license

This is a misinterpretation of Linus' comment at the beginning of the COPYING file in the kernel. Linus can't change the GPL, since the GPL itself is copyrighted by the FSF. He also can't change the license conditions of the original authors of all the files that went into Linux until he made that commend (in the 2.4.0-test series). So what he can do is to clarify under which conditions he's redistributing the assembly of all those GPL and BSD licensed files. And that's "under GPLv2".

As he did single-handedly choose this condition, he can also single-handedly choose to rethink. It's his right to choose the conditions unter which he's distributing the kernel, because all GPLv2 code is GPLv2 or later unless explicitely stated otherwise - by the author (as recipient, you get a direct license from the author, so the author has to say something)! So far, no author of Linux other than Linus himself has made such a statement - if you grep the kernel for copyright statements in file headers, you find that roughly one fourth of the kernel is explicitely GPLv2 or later, and the remaining three fourth don't say anything.

BTW: The FSF requires each file of a FSF project to contain an explicit copyright notice, and this also solves the hijacking problem: You simply take the e.g. ssl.c out of libssl, and state that it is under the Apache license, and that's it. It's compatible to GPLv3, so can be included in a GPLv3 distribution, and it by itself also stays under Apache license. The hijacking is only a problem when you do it like Linus and the other kernel hacker do it: Change the copyright notice on the file. From a tit-for-tat point of view, this is not fair.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:22 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

"all GPLv2 code is GPLv2 or later unless explicitely stated otherwise"

nope. All GPLv2 is v2-only unless explicitely stated otherwise. Clause 9
says that "If the Program <b>does not specify a version number</b> of this
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation." It means if you specify v2, it's v2 only.

look:

IOW: 126 instances of GPL-v2, 124 of them being v2-only.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:59 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

Please learn to grep. The term used to declare GPL version 2 or later is fixed, and it spells out as:

This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

I find a whooping 4631 files with exactly this text in my /usr/src/linux directory. And the GPL v2 explicitely states that you can choose any later license. If the author does not state any version, you can choose whatever version you like (Section 9). Please read the GPL! It's right in /usr/src/linux, just skipp below the comment from Linus. The majority of the Linux kernel does not specify any version (apart from your 124 files), Linus comment is just for himself (he chose to use GPLv2 to redistribute; he's entitled to do that, it doesn't change the state of the original work, since the GPL is very precise that you get all the rights only from the original authors).

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 5:11 UTC (Thu) by walken (subscriber, #7089) [Link]

Hi Ingo,

> So whether the GPLv3 fulfills what the GPLv2 was "supposed to do in the
> FSF's view" is pretty much besides the point - the FSF only wrote the ~600
> lines GPL license, the kernel developers wrote the other 7 million lines of
> code. Thus what matters mostly is the Linux kernel contributors' view on
> this issue.

You are of course right about this - if the kernel developers want to use the GPLv2 license, it is of course their right to do so, and they do not have to justify themselves for that choice.

I also realise that some of the kernel developers seem to have strong feelings against the FSF, and might be disinclined to consider the GPLv3 for that reason. Which is fine too - you can just say you dont want to look at any new FSF license if that's how you feel.

However, the kernel developers *have* been making arguments against GPLv3 and I find these to be quite confusing. So since there has been some arguing, it's only natural that people will try to understand what you mean. In the message you were replying to, khim was arguing (quite convincingly, I think) that the GPLv3 does not do anything beyond what GPLv2 was supposed to do. You say the FSF's opinion of what GPLv2 is supposed to do is irrelevant - fine, but then, what is YOUR opinion of what GPLv2 is supposed to do ?

So far I've heard of the "GPLv3 would prevent tivo from using linux" issue. Linus has been arguing (actually, you did too: http://lwn.net/Articles/200628/) that it's a USE restriction and that GPLv2 did not have those - but that's incorrect, the restriction is only about DISTRIBUTION and GPLv2 already had some of this, i.e. microsoft can not "use" the linux TCP stack in their windows OS either. Or technically they'd be free to USE it internally (GPLv2 does not have any usage restrictions), but they could not DISTRIBUTE the result. If you really wanted a license without distribution restrictions, I think you'd just use BSD. So, in YOUR opinion, why are you happy with the distribution restrictions in GPLv2 but not those in GPLv3 ?

You've also been arguing that tivo should be free to lock down their software, so that you get the source but you can't recompile it and run the result on your tivo. You seem to think it's OK since if one wants to be able to run their modified code, they can just buy a general-purpose computer. Would you still feel that way if it somehow became impossible to buy a general-purpose computer with TV inputs and outputs ?

I'm just trying to understand your opinion...

Thanks,

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:08 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

"Would you still feel that way if it somehow became impossible to buy a general-purpose computer with TV inputs and outputs ?"

It still wouldn't have anything to do with the software license. It's not about the software, it's about the hardware and about laws that control the hardware.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 15:27 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

I'm a "hardware" developer as job description. I really don't like this "it's about hardware" talk people who apparently understand absolutely nothing about hardware except that it comes in boxes talk that way. "Hardware" today is typically 95% software, one or several processors, memories, and some custom stuff which really is hardware in the original sense (processors often are half-software as well, e.g. microcode). All sane hardware developer move the complex stuff to software, and an appliance like the TiVo definitely has a lot of complex stuff in software. And today, even most digital "hardware" really is created by compiling Verilog or VHDL descriptions (which is perfect software, if you look at it) into a form that can be made as gates.

Therefore, there can't be such a sharp distinction between "hardware" and "software" as it used to be when hardware still was that brick&mortar stuff (nails, screws, etc.). Just take a simple view: It's software when the copyright applies. When it doesn't, it's hardware. Most what may appear to an outsider as hardware really is software which was transformed into physically tangible stuff. But you wouldn't claim that a CD full of programs is hardware, because it's phyically tangible, would you?

So stop telling us that the TiVo is a "hardware" issue.