| |||||||||||||
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some!WOW! Community soap opera - and then some!Posted Oct 3, 2006 1:53 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)Parent article: Busy busy busybox
The GPLv3 v. GPLv2 debate is really shaping up to be a major "mind" fork in the FOSS community in a while. As I'm typing this, there have been 147 comments to this story, with hundreds more on similar topics in the last few weeks (and that's just LWN). And it's not just nobody's like myself commenting, but also important FOSS developers and people associated with FSF. WOW!
Both sides present some compelling arguments in relation to the DRM provisions of GPLv3. Patent issues appear to be more related to the unfortunate wording and appear fixable, but DRM stuff is likely to remain the forking point, as least for a while.
IMHO, it seems inevitable that DRM will find its way into devices playing whatever "content industry" makes. They are so bent on having this that no amount of convincing is likely to work. Too much new revenue at stake.
The most interesting questions (to me) remain these:
1. Can GPLv3 really stop DRM in numbers that matter?
2. Would staying with GPLv2 accelerate DRM adoption or not?
3. Are we about to witness a huge FOSS licensing split?
(Log in to post comments)
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 3, 2006 5:13 UTC (Tue) by svkelley (guest, #37299) [Link] 4. Will Gplv3 kill commercial embedded linux development? Windows CE definitely stands to benefit.
Sean V. Kelley
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 3, 2006 5:57 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] 1. Can GPLv3 really stop DRM in numbers that matter?Easy one. The answer is No. If GPL'ed software had a Microsoft-like market share, then it might have some effect, but as things now stand, those that want to create systems with DRM capabilities will simply base their designs on non-GPL3 software, of which there is no lack of. 2. Would staying with GPLv2 accelerate DRM adoption or not? It would have no effect. I think the only thing that really can stop DRM is consumer reaction against it. As long as there is demand for DRM technology, there is no shortage of software writers willing to help provide it. 3. Are we about to witness a huge FOSS licensing split? I hope there is still time to find common ground, otherwise this will be the biggest setback to F/OSS to ever happen.
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 3, 2006 15:33 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] 3. Are we about to witness a huge FOSS licensing split? I hope there is still time to find common ground, otherwise this will be the biggest setback to F/OSS to ever happen. I agree, and i hope so too. For example the patent language looks quite OK to me - patents are the "source code of ideas", so an extension of the Quid Pro Quo to that space looks obviously correct and are within the spirit of the GPLv2. One problem spot is the DRM provisions which depart from the spirit of the GPLv2 by trying to control certain works created independently from our codebase - for example certain types of hardware. This "controlling of other works" is achieved by the GPLv3 by adding certain types of "keys" to the definition of "Source Code" - and hence forcing the release of them [or the ceasing of distribution] via the distribution clauses. (with tons of qualifications and exceptions all around to avoid known collateral damage. It's a real mess, and by far my biggest problem with the GPLv3 - and also the main worry of other kernel developers who have expressed negative opinion. See other posts in this thread for more details and for a rather lively discussion of this topic.) The other problem spot is the 'extra permissions and restrictions' language. It is purportedly there to allow the integration of code with different license structures, but this integration is not done on an equal basis: "pure GPLv3" code is treated in an assymetrically beneficial way, which some people fear will lead to the assimilation of "non-pure" GPLv3 code. It also departs from the fundamental contribution symmetry spirit promised by the GPLv2: "code others take from you and modify you can take back and put into your project". With the currently proposed GPLv3, taking "pure GPLv3" code (that was taken from your project and modified) and putting those modifications into your "GPLv3 + permissions" project might silently "upgrade" your project's licensing status to "pure GPLv3" - at which point, if your licensing difference from the GPLv3 was on moral or religious grounds it's not "your project" anymore. So my suggestion would be to not "silence" critics with the promise of extra permissions allowed, but with the addressing of the worries of the critics.
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 3, 2006 15:39 UTC (Tue) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] 3. Are we about to witness a huge FOSS licensing split?
It is inevitable. This has actually been coming for a long time, ever since the term Open Source was coined. Open Source was invented to make the Free software movement attractive to the business world and draw investments. It worked, and today there is a very significant and large investment by commercial interests in Open Source Software. However, the Free software leaders have always been uneasy with the term Open Source and never really supported it. They don't see the value that business brings to the table and they have a deep and entrenched distust of people of influence or people of wealth.
Unfortunately the keepers of the GPL and the leaders of the current changes have become a liability for the business interests. They have clearly shown that they have nothing but disrespect for the political and business leaders of our society. The notion that congress is evil or that business is only out to screw the public, is quite frankly, delusionary. Those who espouse such concepts are in fact creating a culture of hate, and they need medication and counseling before they get violent. While the leaders of Free software were once visionary and creating positive change, their anger has overcome them, and they are no longer people that I, nor many others are willing to follow. I simply can not support the kinds of divisive, hateful, and acidic things that I hear from the Free side of the F/OSS leaders.
Business has invested too much in open source to walk away now. Business is not evil, congress is not evil, DRM does mean Digital Rights Managament and has nothing to do with Digital Restrictions Managment. Many in the world believe that people starving to death in the Sudan is an issue worth getting worked up about, whereas hacking in to a Tivo box may be fun, it is not an issue that has any real bearing on mankind. Thus, a giant fork between those of us who are mainstream and earn a living from Open Source and those of us who are fringe and want to impose their views of society through Free software is inevitable.
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 3, 2006 22:16 UTC (Tue) by svkelley (guest, #37299) [Link] >Thus, a giant fork between those of us who are mainstream and earn a living >from Open Source and those of us who are fringe and want to impose their >views of society through Free software is inevitable.
I completely agree. I make a living developing embedded devices. I don't spend my time hacking Tivo nor do I want anyone hacking my commercial products. Let the market decide. People see value in the product, they will buy it.
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:15 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] I make a living from embedded device/software development too, but I'm afraid I can't agree with your or Sombrio's characterisation of the situation. Once I understood the difference I found that I was a 'Free Software' person and not an 'Open Source' person. So there are embedded developers on both side of this argument.
I don't believe the entire embedded industry will stop using Linux even if it can't 'tivoise'. Hackability (aka user feedback, improvements and involvement) is a benefit as well as a potential cost. We live in interesting times, certainly, but calling the FSF names as Sombiro does above and claiming that they are looney zealots and he is the mainstream is certainly simplistic, and probably wrong. There probably _are_ now more 'Open Source' developers than 'Free Software' ones - but it is not a static division, indeed most of the time it is not a division at all. I suppose if GPLv3 retains the anti-DRM clauses then perhaps it will become clearer just how the numbers stack up.
And saying that DRM has 'nothing to do with Digital Restrictions Management' is just bollocks. It _is_ enforcement of restrictions. That's how it's implemented, that's how it works. I'm reasonably confident that it will lose out to free/open content in the long term, but it's going to be an ugly fight. I agree that manufacturers have the right to make DRM-enabled devices, but I don't agree that they can use GPLed code in such a way that end users lose the freedom to modify that code. I'm happy if GPLv3 makes that clearer.
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 3, 2006 22:58 UTC (Tue) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] Thus, a giant fork between those of us who are mainstream and earn a living from Open Source and those of us who are fringe and want to impose their views of society through Free software is inevitable.That would be very unfortunate. One of the biggest philosophical strengths of open source, in my opinion, is how it can be supported by arguments from almost any political view. If you happen to be a communist, the 'no one owns it' part will sell you the idea. If you are a socialist, the collaborative development model will win your heart. If you are a conservative, the low price will attract you. If you are a free market libertarian, then the economic arguments mage by ESR in 'The cathedral ...' should be convincing. That new licenses will occasionally be created, and that projects that consider switching licenses will lead to considerable pain is nothing new, and this will doubtlessly happen again in the future. But splitting the entire FOSS movement into two mutually hostile camps would probably lead to them implementing two separate systems, which would be a major blow to the entire movement. We do not need BSD style fork of the entire GNU/Linux system. I feel that this is just another disagreement over what rights a user should be granted in an open source license. I hope that in the end, the kernel people will use the license they like the most, and the FSF the one they like the most, but that all the little communists, socialists, neocons and libertarians can still get together, pretend they don't hate each other and make a rocking operating system.
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 5, 2006 0:34 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] They don't see the value that business brings to the table and they have a deep and entrenched distust of people of influence or people of wealth. ... The notion that congress is evil or that business is only out to screw the public, is quite frankly, delusionary. Those who espouse such concepts are in fact creating a culture of hate, and they need medication and counseling before they get violent. While the leaders of Free software were once visionary and creating positive change, their anger has overcome them, and they are no longer people that I, nor many others are willing to follow.I call troll. RMS and the FSF have very clearly stated reasons for what they do, and these reasons have nothing to do with hatred and everything to do with freedom. There is plenty of room to disagree with their goals, their methods, and their definitions, but let's all respect each other, eh? Can you even give _one_ example of a "divisive, hateful, acidic thing [...] from the Free side of the F/OSS leaders"? (Ironically, the other way around is quite easy, thanks to ESR; but, of course, ESR saying nutty things doesn't invalidate the Open ideology either.) You might also ask just how much code is produced by people in your "mainstream" versus "fringe". I think you'll find that almost every project's contributors are a good mix, and some of the most significant contributors _are_, somehow, simultaneously on the "fringe"...
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 12, 2006 23:06 UTC (Thu) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] >>They don't see the value that business brings to the table and they have a deep and entrenched distust of people of influence or people of wealth.
They invited major "shareholders" of Free Software to the table for discussing the upcoming GPLv3. So far none of them has left with slamming doors.
The FSF has always seen the importance of commercial endeavours regarding Free Software. In the spirit of the four software freedoms, it is the task of the FSF to safeguard "the right to make a profit" against "the right to make a profit by trampling users rights"
The large shareholders who hold considerable economic assets regarding Free Software are expecting the FSF to listen to their concerns that none of their competitors gains an unfair advantage by unifying on a common ground. In return the FSF wants to define a level playing field where denying users rights cannot be used as leverage.
Basically what you mean by "They don't see the value that business" is "They refuse to cater to the advantage the business I am in gains by supressing the four software freedoms."
>>Business has invested too much in open source to walk away now. Business is not evil,
No, evil business is evil. Good business is good.
>>Many in the world believe that people starving to death in the Sudan is an issue worth getting worked up about, whereas hacking in to a Tivo box may be fun, it is not an issue that has any real bearing on mankind.
Most people aren't in a position to charter a flight and drop food packages over a starving population. However, some are in a position to close the digital divide and create a low-treshold perspective for people wanting to improve their lives.
Software (and software freedom) has a real bearing on mankind, and this will only increase as time goes by.
>>Thus, a giant fork between those of us who are mainstream and earn a living from Open Source and those of us who are fringe and want to impose their views of society through Free software is inevitable.
This is disingenuous at best; to label those who support Free Software as "fringe" and imply they do not earn their living with it.
WOW! Community soap opera - and then some! Posted Oct 13, 2006 2:25 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "Not leaving with slamming doors" doesn't necessarily imply "comfortable", "satisfied", or "believing they have been listened to". Nor are the interests of all businesses necessarily aligned.
It could be that some are continuing to participate because they believe they can get small improvements (removing ambiguities in the license is a benefit even if the unambiguous answer is not the one you would have preferred) and don't want to burn their bridges.
It could be that some are continuing to participate because they favor non-free software options and want to make it harder for others to benefit from using free software.
Community soap opera reruns Posted Oct 3, 2006 23:07 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] 3. Are we about to witness a huge FOSS licensing split?It has happened in the past, it will happen again. First it was the BSD license, the X license, the Apache license, etc. Then people got fed up to see their code being used by unscrupulous companies to make a cheap dollar and create needless incompatibilities in the process. So developers switched en masse to GPLv2, which preserved their intent of having free code. Meanwhile some corporations pushing weaker licenses for obscure ideological reasons, with little effect. Now many developers don't like the motivations behind the GPLv3, so (being a bit blind like we all are sometimes) they will stick to GPLv2. Eric Raymond et al will take advantage of the disagreement to push people to softer licenses. In a few years we will be fed up of seeing our code used in "see but don't touch" embedded devices, where its freedom serves no one but its new masters. So devs will try to contribute to projects where the original freedoms are preserved and not abused; some GPLv3 kernel will be there waiting for them, hopefully written in C++. There is a second, more benign scenario: DRM will be a huge failure in the market and nobody will use it anymore, as predicted by some. In this case the anti-DRM clauses will have no effect, so just for the anti-patent clauses the GPLv3 would have some benefits. A third possibility: DRM could also become mandatory, in which case we are done for anyway; "see but don't touch" freedom would be of no use. I wouldn't bet for any of these two alternatives.
|
|||||||||||||