Similar in spirit? [LWN.net]

Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:58 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to: Similar in spirit? by njs
Parent article: Similar in spirit?

> This is what worries me about how the v3 process is turning out: if it
> manages to split the FOSS community, then even if I agree completely
> with the FSF's goals, I can't shrug that off as just a practical
> problem, or the regretful but morally necessary outcome of some people
> deciding that they prefer pragmatics to freedom. It directly, and
> potentially dramatically, impacts my own ability to act as a free
> developer. The possiblity terrifies me, viscerally.

That worries me too, but I don't stay up thinking about it at night
because I think things just look that way.

The kernel community is one of the most visible and vocal parties when it
actually has something to say in the public. And while the majority of
the stakeholders in GPLv3 have been relatively quiet, preferring to work
within the Free Software Foundation's open license drafting process, the
kernel developers have limited their response to complaint, telling the
press GPLv3 is wrong, telling the press FSF is wrong, drafting a document
(thankfully some of them at least went this far, but they really ought to
participate officially rather than lob press releases), and further
complaint.

It's no surprise to me that it appears as if we're split right down the
middle. Anyone unhappy about the license is going to scream, but anyone
pleased with it is going to sit back with a smile (think, Tux just got
laid!)

There seem to be a lot of people that are really happy with the way
things are going. We still haven't reached agreement, but that's why
further draft(s) are coming. Sun and Nokia, for example, are encouraged
and predict even further improvement.

The _real_ danger isn't from the GPLv3 license - it's from the GPLv3
license FUD. If you want to make sure we don't get split, focus on
de-fusing emotional tension wherever you encounter it. Discuss the
license but encourage real participation. And make sure that people
realize that preemptive reactions to an unreleased license are absurd,
especially if that stakeholder refuses to officially participate.

Cheers!

(Log in to post comments)

Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 6, 2006 14:37 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]

The kernel community is one of the most visible and vocal parties when it actually has something to say in the public.

The kernel community is the biggest project that is closest to the hardware, so you should not be surprised that we have a direct (and vocal) opinion when it comes to issues of the GPLv3 trying to control hardware. We are dealing with tons of hardware issues today, our work has been DRM-ed by Tivo, and we'll be amongst the first ones suffering the fallout of any negative effect of a bad license change in this area.

Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:22 UTC (Fri) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

> The kernel community is the biggest project that is closest to the
> hardware, so you should not be surprised that we have a direct (and
> vocal) opinion when it comes to issues of the GPLv3 trying to control
> hardware.

I claim no surprise. I observe precisely what you've said.

> We are dealing with tons of hardware issues today, our work has been
> DRM-ed by Tivo...

Indeed.

> and we'll be amongst the first ones suffering the fallout of any
> negative effect of a bad license change in this area.

How so? The kernel is under GPLv2 only, and the issue of forming a
consensus among thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of copyright holders
(some of whom might be dead but have living successors-in-interest) seems
to practically wall off the kernel from GPLv3 regardless of what its
terms are.

This is an easy question to answer I'm sure, but please don't forget
about my others scattered throughout this very rich discussion.

And I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer from anyone as to why
many (most?) of the kernel devs have no desire to officially participate.
So far I've heard of Harald Welte actively participating, alongside
complaints in private from other real process participants that the other
kernel developers never showed or stayed. And Harald himself even asked
the question "Why was I the only kernel developer at three conferences I
attended?"

Why will no one answer my charge?

Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 13, 2006 10:13 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

The kernel is under GPLv2 only

Please read the license, this is not true. Linus redistributes what he has got under GPLv2 only, which is his right. Most of Linux either does not tell anything about the license version (in which case you need to assume that it's GPL any version), or it explicitely tells you that it is GPLv2 or later. Few, if any, files are marked with an explicit "GPLv2 only" by the original author. Linus is not in the position to change the license terms of the original authors, and the GPL clearly states that you get the license from the original author.

Node besides: Linus didn't ask anybody about his GPLv2-only comment in 2.4.0-test-something, so he can remove that whenever he's convinced that GPLv3 is ok for him. Being a loudmouth who makes more than enough errors, and then takes years to recover from that, this is not likely to be soon, but it may happen.