Forks are not part of the decision process. [LWN.net]

Forks are not part of the decision process.

Posted Oct 2, 2006 12:29 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
In reply to: Linux follows an open decision process, and you can fork it if you dont like it by mingo
Parent article: Busy busy busybox

It's called the /bin/cp command and it's very easy to do.

Do not confuse "forking" with "deciding". The decision process of Linux is closed and ruled by the benevolent dictator Linus Torvalds; you may like him, his decisions or his kernel a lot, and I will agree with you; but that doesn't make the process any more open. Forking is not part of the decision process.

Of course you can fork the code, find a new name (Linux is a trademark you know), a domain and start hacking. We are not discussing that: this is a consequence of Linux being free software, which nobody discusses here. The result of a fork would not be Linux anymore.

He is now using the "or later version" and "similar in spirit" legal wildcards (that RMS has put there himself and which clauses contributors left in the COPYING file due to trust or due to laziness)

There is a reason this clause is there: the option of using GPLv2 or GPLv3 is not made by the original developers, but by the recipients of the code. If you want the received code to stay GPLv2, it stays v2. If you prefer to switch it to v3, you can do so.

Of course there are practical problems in maintaining either version of the license, but projects can choose or just let the decision to their users.

Without any competitive pressure whatsoever.

Since the option of choosing either v2 or v3 (or eventually v4) is left to you, the recipient of the code, I'd say there is a lot of competitive pressure. Not to speak about the tens of equivalent licenses that have sprouted all around; for the vast majority of projects, which have a few contributors, relicensing is just a few clicks away.

(Log in to post comments)

Forks /are/ part of the decision process.

Posted Oct 2, 2006 13:13 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

>Linus has no monopoly on Linux. You are free to fork Linux anytime.
But he does hold a copyright to the symbol "Linux", so you can't fork and call your shiny new kernel Linux.
He also is the sole, final committer to his/The Mainline Tree.
It's a "de facto monopoly", for all he manages it admirably.

Forks /are/ part of the decision process.

Posted Oct 2, 2006 13:26 UTC (Mon) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]

Linus has no monopoly on Linux. You are free to fork Linux anytime.

But he does hold a copyright to the symbol "Linux"

Wrong. Symbols like "Linux" cannot be copyrighted.

And as i said, i am maintaining my own fork of the Linux kernel.

(The word "Linux" can be trademarked and is trademarked in some countries, and Linus so far has never used any trademark power against a fork of the kernel. But it's not even an issue, you can run a simple script over the whole codebase and replace every occurance of "Linux" with "Lanux" or whatever. In fact the Hurd project uses quite a bit of Linux kernel code and so does Xen. It's perfectly legitimate.)

But you cannot do the same with the GPL, and you cannot fork the license together with the codebase attached to it. Only RMS has the huge, unprecedented legal power to do that. (as explained in detail in the posts above.)

Forks /are/ part of the decision process.

Posted Oct 2, 2006 15:20 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Yes, I meant trademark, sorry.

Forks /are/ part of the decision process.

Posted Oct 2, 2006 18:24 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

You are talking about convincing Linus to add a feature. The equivalent would be convincing the FSF to change the terms in v3. They do have a process for that, but there is no guarantee you will change their mind. I don't see the distinction at all.

Forks /are/ part of the decision process.

Posted Oct 2, 2006 18:55 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

>change the terms in v3. They do have a process for that

One of the contentions is that the process is superficial.
Possibly the FSF could show the first circulated drafts, and diffs against it, to show prove that there substantial community input has affected the draft. This might dampen the squaks in the peanut gallery.