Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)
In yet another GPLv3 article Glyn Moody has solicited comments from
Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Andrew
Morton and Dave Miller. "Since these people are all pretty busy, I
didn't expect much of a response - the odd line here or there if I was
lucky. But I was wrong: they all responded generously, with fascinating
comments and insights into the GPLv3 and related issues."
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 4:28 UTC (Tue) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link] and that the FSF might even just stop using the name "GNU/Linux", finally admitting that Linux never was a GNU project in the first place.Wow. I wonder if Linus is truly ignorant or just likes spreading FUD. The FSF never claimed Linux is a GNU project. The name of GNU projects follow a different convention: GNU GRUB, GNU Binutils, GNU Bash, GNU Compiller Collection, GNU Hurd, etc. Not GNU/GRUB, GNU/Binutils, etc. In fact, when people call Linux by the name "Linux kernel" or just "kernel", and then refer to the whole system as "Linux", what they're doing is leading people to believe that Xorg, GNOME, GNU, and others are Linux projects, which is wrong. And it's funny because this is exactly what Linus is accusing the FSF of doing to his project.
Is it the interviewer's fault? Posted Oct 24, 2006 4:39 UTC (Tue) by dthurston (subscriber, #4603) [Link] It seemed to me that the interviewer might have said GNU/Linux, either to refer specifically to the complete OS or mistakenly to refer to the kernel, and some of the developers got ticked off by that. (Clearly the kernel developers thought it was being used to refer to the kernel.) See the little bit of question that Alan Cox quoted.
Is it the interviewer's fault? Posted Oct 24, 2006 15:03 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If he called just kernel as GNU/Linux - then it's just a mistake (I'm not sure how big it is... it depends from situation). If he called the whole OS so... then it's correct. As others pointed out GNU/MacOS (by Gentoo) or GNU/FreeBSD (by Debian) feel more like GNU/Linux then Busybox/Linux...
Is it the interviewer's fault? Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:24 UTC (Tue) by dberkholz (subscriber, #23346) [Link] I'm pretty sure we've (Gentoo) never called it GNU/MacOS. Our projects are called things like Gentoo/OSX, Gentoo/FreeBSD, etc.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 7:52 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] Well, Alan Cox said this:
"I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux". It's a bit of spin-doctoring by the FSF to try and link themselves to Linux. Normally its just one of those things they do and people sigh about, but when you look at the licensing debate the distinction is vital. (its also increasingly true that FSF owned code is a minority part of Linux)"
I agree, GNU/Linux is dumb. Yes, GNU-toolchain is an important part of the system called "Linux". But so is KDE, Qt, Xorg, Samba, Apache and numerous other tools. Yet they are not mentioed separately. And they don't seem to have any issues with that. So why should GNU be mentioned separately?
"In fact, when people call Linux by the name "Linux kernel" or just "kernel", and then refer to the whole system as "Linux", what they're doing is leading people to believe that Xorg, GNOME, GNU, and others are Linux projects, which is wrong."
Um, they are not making any such claims. They are talking about OS called "Linux", which is composed of separate projects, among them Xorg and the like. That OS comes in several different versions called "Distributions". Nowhere do they claim that Xorg and the like are "Linux-projects". They are even mentioned separately by saying stuff like "this version ships with version 7 of Xorg X-server".
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 10:56 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] "I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux". It's a bit of spin-doctoring by the FSF to try and link themselves to Linux."
With the different philosophies it might be more a matter of trying to distinguish or even dissociate themselves from it.
"I agree, GNU/Linux is dumb."
This is very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. It's not hard to imagine the outcry should someone of the GNU project ever state, "When we set out to create the Linux operating system in 1984". The objections might be in the line of "They never wrote the linux kernel, they should call it GNU and Linux or something like that."
"Yes, GNU-toolchain is an important part of the system called "Linux". But so is KDE, Qt, Xorg, Samba, Apache and numerous other tools. Yet they are not mentioed separately. And they don't seem to have any issues with that. So why should GNU be mentioned separately?"
It is far more than the toolchain. POSIX is a whole slew of standards defining an operating system. Linux implements some of these, but a lot of these are from the GNU project.
KDE, Qt, Xorg, Samba and Apache, as important as they are, are not part of the specifications that define a unix(like) operating system.
From an X-oriented perspective the GNU-contributions may seem irrelevant, but to feel the difference it is instructive to install a member of the BSD family or even opensolaris and use these from a terminal.
And X is not part of the specification, but things like the interface glibc provides and utilities such as sed, awk, yacc and a lot of others are(1).
So to call itself a complete (even if bare) operating system, the linux kernel needs all those utilities, and most of these come from the GNU project (unless someone ports the complete BSD libc and utilities to work with the linux kernel (2) which would give BSD/Linux)
(1) The complete extend of the Single UNIX Specification Version 3
(2) with Debian being able to run GNU on various BSD kernels, the reverse is already done.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 11:31 UTC (Tue) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >This is very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Is it? It seems that, when referring to the kernel in isolation, Linux makes sense.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 12:26 UTC (Tue) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link] So Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox are fanaticals? Because they're the ones that take issue with the name on the article.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 13:11 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I wouldn't have thought it six months ago, but they do seem to be presenting that character in recent statements.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 22:48 UTC (Tue) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
It worries me that they seem so antagonistic to the organization that facilitated the creation of Linux and GNU/Linux. It also disturbs me that kernel.org seems to display some hypocrisy, when the following is read in conjunction with Mr. Cox's statements:
The above statement attributes the operating system to Mr. Torvalds while rolling the contributions of everyone who preceded him, for example, Tanenbaum and Stallman and significant numbers of contributors to their respective projects, as well as everyone who has made the operating system useful since, into "a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net". I think the "spin-doctoring", as Mr. Cox put it, is taking place among kernel developers. The Linux kernel is the keystone of an arch. There is no question about its significance. It does not, however, comprise an entire operating system. You can strip a great deal out code from a distribution, but you cannot strip it down to just the kernel and still have an operating system. To have an operating system that has "POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance", you will have Linux + some significant amount of code from elsewhere. In most cases, a considerable amount of software from the GNU project will accompany that kernel. Mr. Cox said, 'I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux".' Red Hat is free to call their distribution "Red Hat Linux", but surely someone with Mr. Cox's experience has at least heard of "Debian GNU/Linux". Surely he does not mean to deny its existence or deny the Debian project the freedom to choose to credit GNU contributors.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 13:34 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "The Linux kernel is the keystone of an arch. There is no question about its significance. It does not, however, comprise an entire operating system."
No, it doesn't. And to me, neither does Linux + GNU-tools either. For me it takes Xorg and verious other tools as well.
"You can strip a great deal out code from a distribution, but you cannot strip it down to just the kernel and still have an operating system."
Again, in my book, you can't strip Xorg from a distro and still have an usable OS. Does that mean that we should call the OS Xorg/GNU/Linux? How about Xorg/KDE/GNU/Linux? Again, how do you determine who gets mentioned in the title and who does not? The amount of code? Well, KDE (for example) is HUGE, surely it should be mentioned separately?
"but surely someone with Mr. Cox's experience has at least heard of "Debian GNU/Linux"."
Yes he has. But he's not talking about "Debian GNU/Linux", he's talking about "GNU/Linux". "Debian GNU/Linux" refers to one particular distro, whereas "GNU/Linux" is used when talking about all Linux-distros. And Alan's argument is that GNU/Linux does not exist, even though FSF might insist on it. Just because Debian GNU/Linux exists does not mean that GNU/Linux exists.
What we seem to have here (again) is that some people insist that it should be called GNU/Linux, and they are trying to cram their viewpoint down everyone's throat. I don't care if you call it GNU/Linux or just Linux, but don't get your panties in a bunch if someone wants to call it just "Linux"?
What do I call it? Well, when I talk of the kernel, I talk of "The Linux Kernel". When I talk of the OS, I talk of "Linux". When I talk of some specific distro, I call it "Ubuntu", "Fedora", "Debian" and so forth.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:30 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
A GUI is not a requirement for an operating system. As others have pointed out, you can have an operating system centered on Linux with very little else. This is what allows Linux to be used in such things as watches. Its versatility allows it also to be used for your personal computer operating system when combined with whatever array of convenient software you choose. It is also used as the core of specialty operating systems powering manufacturing processes and clusters of computers. Even though it suits you to include "Xorg and various other tools", these do not define an operating system.
You are entitled to your opinion and may name it as you please, of course. I suggest you research its history a bit. Mr. Torvalds combined his original work with that of others and had an operating system on his computer long before there was an Xorg or KDE or GNOME. Based solely on your comments, I don't think you would have considered it a "usable OS" at that time. The facts that skilled hackers recognized it as an operating system and that Mr. Torvalds (eventually) chose to release his work under the GPL resulted in its growth to where people without those skills could use it. An operating system is not defined by your needs or mine. It is an operating system if it operates a computer, not if it can be operated by a given user.
He stated, 'I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux".'
I stated my viewpoint. If that appears to be "cram[ming]" it "down everyone's throat" to you, that seems to be more a problem with your point of view rather than my statement of my own. My "panties" don't seem to have a place in the discussion. That seems reasonable to me. Speech requires adaptation to the audience. When writing, I deliberately include some references to "GNU/Linux", just because I consider the GPL, the GNU project and Linux to be of equal, fundamental importance. (The reference to GNU will naturally include the GPL). Without the GNU project, there may never have been a Linux. Without Linux, we might never have had a free Unix with the protections of the GPL. Without the GPL's protections, corporations might never have 'jumped on the bandwagon'. (Their influence is easily seen by checking out the copyright notices in the Linux source). The foundation of everything that makes up my favorite (and only) operating system is composed of GNU and Linux. If you take either of those away, all the works, by so many people, that make it usable for me without first requiring programming skills I don't have, would simply vanish. (This foundation, in turn, rests upon the work of Thompson, Kernigan, Ritchie, USC at Berkeley, and countless others, but those are of other operating systems).
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 26, 2006 12:06 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] "in my book, you can't strip Xorg from a distro and still have an usable OS"
Might I suggest that your book is a work of fiction? You might have had a point if you'd said "_desktop_ OS"; but you didn't, and the vast majority of OSes in the world today not only do without windowing systems, but being embedded real-time controllers, without any form of direct user interface either. They are no less operating systems for that.
Moreover, plenty of UNIX old hands are quite happy with just a command line. If I really wanted to, I could probably exist quite happily without X at all, thanks to the framebuffer, glinks, mplayer and ghostscript... but I couldn't do without glibc or the GNU toolchain at all (yes, equivalents exist - uClibC, dietlibc, busybox, the BSD userland - but the fact is that every major distribution uses the GNU libc & toolchain because it's compatible with POSIX, comprehensive, current, and comfortable to the point of being a de facto standard).
You might be scared of command lines, but as someone who prefers them, let me assure you that one very definitely CAN strip Xorg, and everything that depends on it, from a distro and still have a usable OS. You can't do that with what's in /bin.
(NB. This is _not_ an opinion on whether kernel+libc+tools should be called Linux, GNU/Linux or Linux/POSIX. I don't have one of those. Sorry.)
call the OS Xorg/GNU/Linux? Posted Nov 2, 2006 22:29 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] Indeed, the first Linux distribution I used was called Linux/GNU/X or(as a TLA) LGX, and it was by Yggdrasil (very nice, BTW).
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 2:17 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] For the record,>Only the fanatics are handing out damnation. is intended to be positive about spirited, collegial debate, and negative right at the Godwin's Law horizon. Disagree agreeably, and all that.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 16:10 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > And X is not part of the specification, but things like the interface glibc provides and utilities such as sed, awk, yacc and a lot of others are(1).
Interesting you should mention yacc. You do know that there is no GNU yacc, don't you? (The GNU project has bison, which is 99+% yacc-compatible). The yacc installed in the two Linux distros I have handy (Suse and Redhat) is in fact from BSD. (Bison is also installed in case anything is sensitive to the differences.)
The fact is that almost any distro is a mix of BSD, GNU, and various third party apps and libraries, and a good chunk of the UNIX-required utilities are not GNU, but BSD (eg yacc, crontab, mail) or 3rd party but BSD-licensed (eg file), or something else entirely (lp).
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 16:41 UTC (Tue) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link] A BSD system will have programs from GNU, and a GNU system will have programs from BSD. I'm not sure yacc is the best example, at least Debian and Red Hat/Fedora use GNU Bison by default, because many of the GNU programs used on these systems require it.This is largely irrelevant, because "taken as wholes, they (GNU and BSD) are two different systems that evolved separately". Of course, Linux doesn't have its own implementation because it's a kernel and not a system, unlike BSD and GNU. By bringing up yacc, or any Unix program for that matter, you just prove the point you're trying to argue against.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:03 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > By bringing up yacc, or any Unix program for that matter, you just prove the point you're trying to argue against.
And what point was that, exactly?
The fact is that in every comment to this article that has listed a series of utilities as "proof" that the GNU programs are essential, the authors have included programs that are not, in fact, GNU programs.
Which indicates to me that they don't quite know what they're talking about.
Are the GNU tools tremendously useful? Of course. Are they irreplaceable? Of course not.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:18 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] The point is, how many of those programs are Linux?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:39 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] This is where the computer nerds of the world show thier unfortunate penchant for selecting for consistency over clarity.
Linux is a name which has come to me the set of things that people conventionally ran over the Linux kernel. This name came to exist, pretty much by an accident of history (Linux being the most available kernel on which to run free unix tools). The accidental nature of the origin of the name, though, has pretty much no bearing on the fact that the name does exist, and does have clear meaning for computer users and developers. It is the set of tools libraries and so on which have come to exist via consensus, competition, apeing prior standards, and so on. Programmers, users, sysadmins and so on all know what "Linux" means, and so the term is valid, whether or not the history seems logical to you.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 4:32 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > The point is, how many of those programs are Linux?
All of them.
Every Linux distro I have a copy of includes those programs, ported, adapted and packaged by employees of the distro manufacturer.
I'm sorry, did you mean "how many of those programs were originally produced as part of the linux kernel project"? Who cares? They're all based on (conceptually) programs originally developed by Bell Labs, and anyone who has significant experience developing software will tell you that it's a hell of a lot easier to develop a program when you have a working model and a man page than it is to develop one from nothing.
Kernighan (yes that one) and Plauger (of Whitesmiths, who did an independent Unix implementation) wrote a book, nearly 10 years before the GNU Manifesto, called "Software Tools" (1976, a later version was "Software Tools in Pascal", in 1981), which described (with some source code) how to write a good many of the basic Unix tools (cp, ar, ls, sed, etc), including a parser and compiler. It's just not that hard. (I did it for a CDC Cyber 170 running NOS, with its bizarre character set.)
Certainly the GNU team has gone beyond that with some pretty feature-rich implementations of those tools, and because they exist and are free, it isn't necessary to re-invent them (although they could be). But that doesn't give GNU any naming rights over a project that happens to use and incorporate some of those tools, any more than BSD, X.org, KDE or even SCO have naming rights.
Naming rights Posted Oct 25, 2006 9:00 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Pray tell us what gives Torvalds naming rights over those tools, then? Calling a whole operating system by his first name? Writing a kernel is not that hard, many people have done it over the years; certainly not a monolithic kernel. Just look at the number of embedded kernels out there, and there are lots of free software ones. True, the Linux team have done a feature-rich implementation of a kernel; but they could be easily replaced.This discussion is becoming bizarre.
Naming rights Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:01 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] He didn't name them.
He didn't even name his kernel, an FTP site admin did that :)
The distributors choose to name their distributions, which include the Linux kernel, with names including the name of that kernel. That is up to them. Some of them, e.g. Debian, also give credit to GNU in the name. That, too, is up to them. Some of them mention neither.
The term 'a Linux distribution' has historical roots, derived from the fact that even the earliest Linux distributions included a Linux kernel (long before they included, say, a GNU libc), and that those distributions were *explicitly put together* to get the Linux kernel and a usable collection of things around it out where people could use them, and were originally put together by people associated with kernel hacking.
Naming rights Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:04 UTC (Wed) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Alan Cox wrote:>There is no such thing as GNU/Linux. For an article like this it's really important to understand and clarify that (and from the US view also as a trademark matter).
And I think that is the kind of statement from kernel hackers that started the current thread. Now if you want to write about subjects that are tangent to that we can continue on forever. And just to get things started in the right direction, what to you think about butterflies?
Now if one of the main kernel hackers is going to suggest possible legal action against the use of the term GNU/Linux then there is a problem.
Despite what they say, it is the kernel hackers that are changing the game by not wanting to make adjustments to the new playing field that has been presented by mega-corporations and their paid in full politician friends.
I don't want to steal anything or use anything from the media companies that I don't have a clear legal right to use, however, I do not want the media companies to be my MASTER, especially when I don't have any interest in their products in the first place. If the kernel hackers are willing to make that sacrifice, that is fine, but they have no one to blaim but themselves.
I have never seen anything from the FSF or its agents that suggests they want to hijack the term Linux, they just want people to realize that there is a whole lot more to what is running on their computers than what is provided by the kernel people. The problem Alan Cox is having with someone possibly thinking Linux is a GNU project when the term GNU/Linux is used, stems from the fact that the kernel hackers don't mind if people think that the total of the system is Linux. If the kernel hackers would make the distinction that Linux is the kernel, the problem would eventially go away.
Living in a world where I am a drone for the use of the super rich has no appeal to me. I realize that you may prefer that and that is fine.
Naming rights Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:21 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I'll admit failing to understand how you went from Linux being called whatit is because of historical inertia to being a `drone for the use of the super rich'.
Naming rights Posted Oct 26, 2006 3:57 UTC (Thu) by walken (subscriber, #7089) [Link] >>There is no such thing as GNU/Linux. For an article like this it's really important to understand and clarify that (and from the US view also as a trademark matter).
>Now if one of the main kernel hackers is going to suggest possible legal action against the use of the term GNU/Linux then there is a problem.
Yeah, I felt that way when I read Alan's statement too.
No problem though, I'll just call the OS 'GNU' from now on, in order to avoid infringing on Linux's copyright. I'll reserve 'linux' for when I talk about the kernel.
:)
Sounds a bit arrogant Posted Oct 24, 2006 19:51 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] The fact is that in every comment to this article that has listed a series of utilities as "proof" that the GNU programs are essential, the authors have included programs that are not, in fact, GNU programs.Wow, I feel I'm the lucky one. I said "Bash, cp or glibc". Which indicates to me that they don't quite know what they're talking about.What? people may erroneously include a *BSD utility, but it does not matter for the main issue: as jstAusr said, essential libraries and utilities are not part of the kernel. However, FreeBSD hackers did in fact intend to build an OS; they just were luckier with their internal kernel (and not so much with external efforts).
Sounds a bit arrogant Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:32 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > I feel I'm the lucky one. I said "Bash, cp or glibc".
Um, glibc isn't a command or utility, it's a library.
The GNU tools are irreplaceable Posted Oct 24, 2006 19:53 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Neither the free BSDs nor any Linux distro can be built with any free compiler other than GCC. Every program that's run on top of a Linux-based desktop or server distro uses GNU libc (many embedded Linux systems do not).
The GNU tools are irreplaceable Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:52 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] So you're saying that nobody else on the entire planet could possibly write a free C compiler? Or that free source cannot be compiled with a non-free compiler?
Go on, pull the other one.
There are other free C compilers out there. Granted, not quite as capable as the GCC, but that's more from not reinventing the wheel than from any lack of ability to make it so. If push came to shove, the Linux and BSD and other developers could in short order modify kernel source and compilers to make one compilable by the other.
The GNU tools are irreplaceable Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:05 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] It's not that nobody could do it: it's that modifying Linux to be compilable by a compiler not implementing a large subset of the set of C extensions known as GNU C would be sufficiently difficult that nobody would bother.
What happens, instead, is that vendors of other (proprietary) C compilers that run on Linux modify their compilers to support enough of GNU C that they can compile the kernel: and even then it tends to break because the compilers don't necessarily support as many as GCC does, and because kernel hackers tend to build the kernel with GCC, so it gets most of its compilation and run-testing and compiler bug workarounds and so on with GCC in view.
All free-as-in-freedom C compilers remotely capable enough to compile the Linux kernel incorporate large amounts of GCC source anyway (the SGI(?) one whose name I forget and LLVM both use the GCC backends and parts of the middle-end). The non-free ones presumably don't, but they're also not amenable to modification by the kernel hackers.
The GNU tools are irreplaceable Posted Nov 2, 2006 22:56 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] All free-as-in-freedom C compilers remotely capable enough to compile the Linux kernel incorporate large amounts of GCC source anywayTcc can compile the Linux kernel, and (judging from the licence (LGPL), and from the bugs that turn up) does not incorporate GCC source code. However, that does not mean you can compile the rest of a Linux distribution with tcc.
The GNU tools are irreplaceable Posted Nov 14, 2006 20:50 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Can it? Wow, it's come on a long way since I saw it last.
I really must look at it again.
(Mind you, I wouldn't much want to run a highly-loaded machine on such a
yacc on GNU/Linux Posted Oct 24, 2006 23:49 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] You do know that there is no GNU yacc, don't you?On my Debian-ish system: $ cat /usr/bin/yacc #! /bin/sh exec /usr/bin/bison -y "$@"
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 2, 2006 22:44 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] You do know that there is no GNU yacc, don't you? (The GNU project has bison, which is 99+% yacc-compatible). The yacc installed in the two Linux distros I have handy (Suse and Redhat) is in fact from BSD.Both Berkeley yacc and GNU Bison are descendents of a program called Bison. Therefore I doubt that Berkeley yacc is more (AT&T)-yacc compatible than GNU Bison. On the two distributions that I tested (Gentoo and Debian), the
yacc command invokes
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:03 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] With the different philosophies ["GNU/Linux"] might be more a matter of trying to distinguish or even dissociate themselves from it.Right, like calling my distro "Peanut Butter Linux" tries to dissociate my distro from peanut butter. Um... that makes no sense at all! "GNU/Linux" is clearly an (imo misguided) attempt to associate GNU more strongly with Linux. It seemed petty then and it seems petty now.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 18:31 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] >>With the different philosophies ["GNU/Linux"] might be more a matter of trying to distinguish or even dissociate themselves from it.
>Right, like calling my distro "Peanut Butter Linux" tries to dissociate my distro from peanut butter. Um... that makes no sense at all!
As I tried to point out, would it be better if the FSF just dropped the whole GNU operating system name and rename it "Linux"?
>"GNU/Linux" is clearly an (imo misguided) attempt to associate GNU more strongly with Linux.
GNU has a different philosophy than "Linux", if they would call the GNU system Linux, they would be accused of appropriating the Linux brand (and Linus would probably claim trademark infingement seeing how he skips no opportunity to bash the FSF).
So pray tell, what should people who support the FSF philosophy call "Linux"? Can't call it Linux, can't call it GNU/Linux.
>It seemed petty then and it seems petty now.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 3:13 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] As I tried to point out, would it be better if the FSF just dropped the whole GNU operating system name and rename it "Linux"?Of course not. The minute a 100% GNU Project operating system is available for download, you let me know and I'll be happy to call it GNU/Linux. Heck, even if it uses the Linux kernel I'll happily call it "GNUOS" without gluing "Linux" somewhere in the name. Until then, as long as Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Slack, Gentoo, etc are producing the distributions, I'll call the final assembly by whatever name the distro chooses. And, so far, only Debian seems to call their distro GNU/Linux. What should people who support the FSF philosophy call "Linux"? Can't call it Linux, can't call it GNU/Linux. Call the kernel the "Linux Kernel". Call the distro "Ubuntu Linux" or "Debian GNU/Linux." The "Linux Movement" is clearly somewhat different from the "GNU Movement" so feel free to use whichever term is more appropriate. I don't see a problem.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 11:17 UTC (Tue) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link] I wasn't talking about GNU/Linux here, nor about what Alan Cox said. I was talking about what Linus Torvalds said.
But in any case, is Linux an operating system that includes a linker, a compiler, a shell, a window system, a desktop environment, or is it a kernel? Linux is a kernel. You might think calling the whole system GNU/Linux is silly, but IMO calling Linux by "kernel" and the whole system by "Linux" is even sillier.
When Alan Cox says that FSF owned code is a minority part of "Linux", he's probably wrong; I don't think the FSF owns any code there at all (though it's possible some Linux hackers assigned their copyright to the FSF, but even so that's not what he means). When it comes to the whole system that people refer to as Linux, the Linux authors own even less code than the GNU projects combined. So why is the whole thing called Linux again?
Because the Linux hackers insist on calling the entire system that uses their kernel by the name Linux, a number of people believe that projects such as Xorg, GNOME and GNU are actually part of "the Linux OS", when in fact they're not. If you disagree with that, then please tell me exactly what is part of this "Linux OS" other than [1].
[1] http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.18.1.ta....
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:27 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] thebluesgnr wrote:>You might think calling the whole system GNU/Linux is silly, but IMO calling Linux by "kernel" and the whole system by "Linux" is even sillier.
That is one of the best expressions of the problem I have seen, thanks.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:44 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] > You might think calling the whole system GNU/Linux is silly, but IMO calling Linux by "kernel" and the whole system by "Linux" is even sillier.
This sort of multivalent property of words is common, and normal in language. It rarely causes significant problems, and people deal with it readily. For example: New York.
That is, our language centers do not have trouble with this "problem", and so it is not really very important to worry about.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 19:17 UTC (Wed) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] So can you explain why people are arguing various sides in these threads? Your remark is whollytangential to the quoted part. Yes, words can be overloaded, nobody is arguing that. What is being argued is that calling an operating system composed of the Linux kernel, the GNU chain, X, Apache, and more projects GNU/Linux (noting that the GNU chain is at the moment quite essential in building and running it) is certainly not sillier than calling it Linux.
In everday life I call it Linux myself but I recognize the importance of the GNU stuff, both historically
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 26, 2006 8:49 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Excellent point! I will henceforth refer to GNU/Linux as "Linux", and the Linux kenrel as "Linux Linux". :)
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:05 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > You might think calling the whole system GNU/Linux is silly, but IMO calling Linux by "kernel" and the whole system by "Linux" is even sillier.
Not silly at all, according to the Trademark Office, which says that Linux is a word mark describing goods and services, namely "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation."
That certainly fits what (most of) the vendors of packaged Linux systems sell: "RedHat Enterprise Linux", "SUSE Linux", "Yellow Dog Linux" and even (digs down through a pile of boxes) "Mandrake Linux". Not "RedHat Enterprise GNU/Linux". (BTW, the Trademark Office has no reference to a GNU/Linux, although it does have about 194 other trademarks including the word "Linux" (some defunct, at least one for laundry detergent)).
If Debian (or anyone else) wants to label their product "GNU/Linux", that's fine for them, but I'm pretty sure that RedHat, SUSE and the others have more than just kernels in those boxes.
Those who refer the OS as "Linux" and the linux kernel as "the linux kernel" are merely being accurate.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:05 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] What Linus Torvalds registered with the Trademark office does not matter.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:39 UTC (Wed) by juriise (guest, #38305) [Link] > ...according to the Trademark Office, which says that Linux is a word mark describing goods and services, namely "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation."
This at least indicates that Linus supports the notion of Linux as the operating system. Yes, and he calls the kernel "the kernel" often.
I rather like the prase "show us some code" when people argue about how a project should procede. But this can be turned around: So you want to have influence on the license? Show us some legalese!
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 12:48 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes, GNU-toolchain is an important part of the system called "Linux".GNU is an operating system, that's why it means "GNU's not Unix" (Unix being the original operating system). Stallman set out to write a complete operating system, not a toolchain. It so happens that the kernel was not ready in time, and people started using Linux instead -- it might have been Minix, *BSD, NeXT or whatever, but Linux was there at the right time with the right license for joint distribution. GNU's kernel is not ready yet, so people use Linux. Still, Linux could be used as the kernel for a completely different OS, it's just that the Linux hackers didn't see the necessity to write an OS from scratch. GNU hackers did. (So did other people, like Busybox hackers.)
X.org and the rest of the packages you mention are not part of the base GNU OS (the original idea). Not that they are not important for modern distributions, but you can do without them -- and many people do, e.g. in servers. You cannot run GNU/Linux without Bash, For a different point of view, Nexenta is a GNU/OpenSolaris OS: GNU base system + OpenSolaris kernel. It will probably be more similar to my current desktop than my router. Calling that "OpenSolaris" would again be misleading.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 30, 2006 15:33 UTC (Mon) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] I think that your claim that "GNU's kernel is not ready yet, so people use Linux" is misleading, since it implies that most Linux users are just waiting for a usable Hurd so they can switch. My experience is that those few Linux users that know of Hurd regard it as a failiure. Once it gets released, I belive Hurd will have to compete with the Linux kernel on features and mindshare, and I also belive Linux has a huge head start in both those fields. That implies that the Hurd developers would have an uphill battle to replace Linux, even if they released a reasonably well-working kernel today.
Your claim that a busybox-based system with a Linux kernel would be less Linux:y than a Nexenta system is countrary to my experience. Kernel staples like FUSE, hotplug, occasional working wireless drivers, perpetually broken suspend, perpetually broken ntfs support, support for esoteric platforms and the Linux layout of /dev and /proc are to me at least as important for the user experiences as having 7 pages full of switches for ls or a shell with nearly 60 builtins. But that is only my opinion.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:50 UTC (Tue) by jdave23 (guest, #27160) [Link] Let's get one thing straight: There is no such thing as TCP/IP. I'm tired of the TCP project trying to take credit for my IP, goshdarnit!
- Alan Cock
Tivoization and Linux Posted Oct 24, 2006 7:59 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] One of the comments was in the line that the current anti-Tivoization wordings in the GPLv3 draft affect only the Linux kernel, and no other program. That's the same sort of short-sightedness again and again. It's wrong. You can add a policy to Linux to allow it to execute only signed ELF binaries (some extension to SELinux or AppArmor). You seal that DRM-enabled Linux kernel with your BIOS. You seal the apps with this policy-"enhanced" Linux. Now, you still might have some backdoor via an interactive programming language like Perl, Python, Forth, or whatever. One solution is to not sign this sort of application, or to at least restrict it to what it can achieve (like the bash, which for sure is an interpreter, and can hardly be taken away), or to add another level of DRM layer to that language (so that it can only load signed scripts). For obvious reasons, sealing the kernel is the first step you absolutely have to do. If I can change the kernel, I can work around all those further restrictions. Actually, it's sufficient if I can change the DRM-BIOS - the Xbox mod chips for the Xbox-Linux project are an example. Then I can run a modified kernel that lets me run modified applications. But when we allow people to seal the kernel, we have a threat for our applications as well. By making sure that the kernel can't be tivoized, we would have a strong first line of defense. Now, since the Linux developers have personal problems with RMS, and won't come to reason, this won't happen. But at least the GPLv3 builds a second line of defense on the application side. And please, kernel developers: GNU/Linux is the attribute of distributions (like Debian GNU/Linux vs. Debian GNU/HURD), not of the kernel itself! If you can't understand even that (and a Linux distribution really is what the GNU system was about all the time), I can't help you. Just shut up, and leave us GNU project maintainers alone, without hijacking our project's names with your kernel.
Tivoization and Linux Posted Oct 24, 2006 12:18 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]
I have no idea how one could conceivably twist 'the GNU folks insist on attaching a "GNU/" prefix to "Linux"' into 'the Linux folks are hijacking the "GNU" name' - I really don't. Care to explain? I don't want to delve into whether "GNU/Linux" is an appropriate moniker (or for which entities it is), but I'd sure be interested in hearing how you can back up your allegation that the Linux folks are "hijacking" anything. (And FWIW, I'd prefer it without terms like "hijacking" and similar flamebait, too. Thank you.)
Tivoization and Linux Posted Oct 24, 2006 12:35 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Hijacking may be somewhat emotion-laden, but it does seem to be accurate. Unlike some of the statements found in the article.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 15:22 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] People who call the whole OS "Linux" are hijacking the GNU project underthe kernel name without giving proper credit. Because GNU > Linux. You know, if you load all the sources for a typical Debian/Apache web server, you'll get much more code from GNU than from Linux, hell you'll even get more code from Apache than from Linux, so why should you call it a "Linux server"?? The Debian folks got it right: Linux is a replaceable piece of the puzzle, so we do have Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/kNetBSD, Debian GNU/Hurd, Nexenta GNU/OpenSolaris, because underneath X, Apache, etc, for all of those guys there is GNU in the form of glibc, ls, bash, kill, nice, etc.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 16:51 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > for all of those guys there is GNU in the form of glibc, ls, bash, kill,
I don't know about Debian, but in Suse and RedHat, "kill" (and others) comes from BSD.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:59 UTC (Tue) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846) [Link] You know, if you load all the sources for a typical Debian/Apache web server, you'll get much more code from GNU than from Linux, hell you'll even get more code from Apache than from Linux, so why should you call it a "Linux server"?? Check your math. The 2.6.18 kernel has 229MB of source code (uncompressed). The GNU userland (i.e. glibc-2.5 and coreutils-6.3) has 125MB of uncomporessed source total. And Apache 2.0.59 is only 27MB... Now, to be fair, gcc is ~256MB. However, the standard security practice in most organizations is to never install any compilers or development tools on production servers.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 18:50 UTC (Tue) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] > Now, to be fair, gcc is ~256MB. However, the standard security practice> in most organizations is to never install any compilers or development > tools on production servers. I've used Linux on my workstation >10 years. Workstation without a toolchain is a toy, somewhat similar to default Windows installation. For development work Gdb is pretty important and quite huge too...
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 19:00 UTC (Tue) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846) [Link] Of course you need gcc on workstations and development machines. However, most sysadmins I've met are a bit paranoid about installing a compiler on a production server.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 0:00 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] I've been a sysadmin for the better part of twenty years and I've never understood that particular foible. It is trivial to ftp, scp, etc over a binary once you have local access. And far less obvious potentially.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 19:00 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] To be fully fair, the Linux kernel is designed to be compiled by gcc. This seems slightly morerelevant to me than the fact that you can pre-compile the kernel or remove gcc later on. The kernel is intrinsically tied to gcc. So better include it in the balance after all.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:02 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] If the kernel is intrinsically tied to gcc, then how come it can be compiled by some other compiler, like say the Intel one? Linux uses some gcc C extensions, but those can and often are also implemented by other compilers.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:47 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] On how many architectures does the intel compiler work?
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:54 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] How many nits can dance on the head of a pin?
This comment is not directed at anyone in particular, it is omnidirectional in this discussion.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 22:36 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] The point I was making is that in the portability of Linux to many architectures gcc is a crucialfactor. It is all well to say that Linux can in principle be compiled by any suitable compiler and that icc can compile Linux. The statement I made is that linux is intrinsically tied to gcc in the light of Linux's famed portability. I thought that from the theme of this subthread the wording was clear enough, if perhaps a little too implicit.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:37 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I'd be simply fascinated to hear how your servers work without libgcc,libstdc++, et al (approx. 2.5 million lines as of GCC 4.1, although runtime libraries for Java, Objective C, Ada et al account for about 1.5 million of those lines).
Any way you slice it that's a significant hunk of FSF-copyrighted code.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:19 UTC (Tue) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846) [Link] Actually, libstdc++-4.1.1 is only 24MB of uncompressed source code. The vast majority of the 256MB gcc source is the compiler itself, the java runtime, fortran, and ada junk, i.e. stuff that you probably wouldn't have installed on a server (unless you are using gcj in your webapps, of course).
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 7:16 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] And linux's 229MB contain 90% of junk not needed for your server as well (drivers for the things you'll never see installed on that server, filesystems not seen in the wild for years, etc).
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:09 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] That's what my line counts corresponded to. I didn't just du the entire GCC source tree :) that would obviously give ridiculous results.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 27, 2006 20:44 UTC (Fri) by cdmiller (subscriber, #2813) [Link] "Now, to be fair, gcc is ~256MB. However, the standard security practice in most organizations is to never install any compilers or development tools on production servers."
If your server runs perl, php, whatever else, you have development tools installed, and usually you have gcc as well to install extensions to those tools. It's all moot anyhow, as the linux kernel with no userland is userless....
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:16 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Hate to tell you, GNU is entirely replaceable too. That's the great thing about the amazing code diversity that open source has produced. I have an boot disk at home that provides a full Unix-like environment with the Linux kernel but AFAICT doesn't include a single piece of software from the Gnu project. It's mostly BusyBox + BSD.
You may claim that because it was compiled by GCC, this would warrant placing "GNU" in the name. I would disagree. Even if it did, given what happened with GCC 2.9 vs. 3.0, maybe I would call this boot disk Cygnus/Linux. :)
I'll explain: Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:31 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Hate to tell you, GNU is entirely replaceable too. Not really. I have an boot disk at home that provides a full Unix-like environment with the Linux kernel but AFAICT doesn't include a single piece of software from the Gnu project. And you can run all these wonderfull programs like GNOME, KDE or even Mozilla there ? How about Java or Mono ? Especially things like Java, Opera, etc: while all these programs are written "for Linux" you can run them under FreeBSD kernel - but not without glibc. I think it's the best proof anyone will ever need: replace Linux with FreeBSD - and you STILL have working system (and it even can run GNU/Linux binaries). Replace Linux with non-GNU tools - and you either have non-existing chimera (FreeBSD/Linux makes sense in theory but noone ever did it in practice) or joke of the system (I've seen "Unix-like environment" implemented in JavaScript - so it's not such a big deal; only when we are talking about real big projects like GNOME, KDE or Java you can claim that your environment if fully-functional).
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 2:26 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Hm. I really don't understand your reasoning here. glibc is the reason that you want to call everything GNU/Linux? That seems strange since glibc is downright tiny compared to all the other projects you mentioned.
Even though you've may have never seen it yourself, glibc is very easy to replace. You'll agree that my Sharp Zaurus is a full Unix-like environment, won't you? It doesn't run glibc and, I assure you, it's not a chimera.
If I produce your GNU-free Linux chimera, will you agree that the phrase "GNU/Linux" is silly and start saying "Linux Kernel" like everybody else?
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 7:58 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You'll agree that my Sharp Zaurus is a full Unix-like environment, won't you? It doesn't run glibc and, I assure you, it's not a chimera. It's not chimera, it's a joke. Commands have less options. Compiler is missing. When you add compiler (GNU compiler, BTW) - you can not compile a lot of programs because libc is missing a lot of features. In short: GNU/xxx things are closer to each other then xxx/Linux. If I produce your GNU-free Linux chimera, will you agree that the phrase "GNU/Linux" is silly and start saying "Linux Kernel" like everybody else? Ha-ha-ha-ha. You are jocking, right ? Take step back and look on the situation from some distance. You are saying: I'd say: huh ? If there are two different linux-based things and one includes GNU while another is not - then it's perfectly reasonable to use name GNU/Linux. Especially if the GNU come to this world first. Like TCP/IP: TCPv1, TCPv2 and TCPv3 were not IP-based, but once IP was invented this combination become popular and thus got a separate name TCP/IP. The situation with Linux and GNU/Linux was different because Linux always assumed GNU as well. Today it's still so to a large degree (non GNU-based Linuxes are jokes so when you are talking about Linux everyone assumes you are talking about GNU/Linux), but if you'll manage to produce fully-functional Linux system without GNU parts... you'll finally justify name GNU/Linux 100% (because then you'll have two different "Linux systems" and you'll need some way to distinguish them). May be time already come because while Bosybox/Linux is a joke it's very popular in embedded world so some way to distinguish fully functional GNU/Linux systems (commonly found on PC but also on PlayStation 2/3 and in other places) and shrinked (and not-fully functional) Busybox/Linux (can be found in some routers, on Nintendo DS and in other places)...
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:11 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] From the point of view of compiling and running non-sysadmin-as-root things, glibc/coreutils and uClibc/busybox are similar: they're POSIX. glibc is a more complete implementation than uClibc, but there's no magic GNU sauce that makes uClibc 'not a toy'.
(However, it *is* targetted at a different domain, and I'd not expect to see distros using uClibc springing up because of uClibc's intentional total lack of ABI guarantees.)
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 17:28 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "It's not chimera, it's a joke. Commands have less options. Compiler is missing"
Um, Zaurus is a PDA, not a developer-workstation. you shouldn't be typing any "commands" in to a PDA in the first place. The fact that you could do it, is just an added bonus. But just because it's not as flexible or powerful as a full-blown workstation does not mean that it's a "joke". Yet it can still be considered to be an Linux-system.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:57 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Specificially how is my Zaurus a joke? It is more capable than most of the full-fledged Unix environments from the 80s and early 90s. And it actually does host a compiler.Pray tell, what is the magic command-line switch that it is missing? I assure you, it's no joke. I don't know where you got that misconception.
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 8:04 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] To make myslef 100% clear... Hm. I really don't understand your reasoning here. glibc is the reason that you want to call everything GNU/Linux? Of course not. It's other way around: if GNU/Linux are totally glued together - then any name for this combination will do (either GNU or Linux). But since they are not (you can easily replace Linux part and you can replace GNU part - but with a lot of limitations as a result) it's good idea to call this combination GNU/Linux to distinguish it from other combinations (Busybox/Linux or GNU/OpenSolaris).
I'll explain: Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:14 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Now that I can agree with: that or just call all of them by the name of the distro until you must be detailed ('Debian, that's Linux with X.org and glibc and the GNU tools').
In practice this is complete dancing around how many angels can argue on the head of a pin anyway. It doesn't matter a *damn* what distros are called (although actively disgusting names are probably a bad idea).
Tivoization and Linux Posted Oct 24, 2006 16:43 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > By making sure that the kernel can't be tivoized,
You can't, there isn't "the" kernel. Ignoring the fact that most of the Linux kernel is GPL v2 only, there are plenty of other (eg BSD) kernels out there.
If hardware manufacturers that MUST (for legal or contractual reasons) put some locks on the firmware can't use Linux (or *cough* Hurd), they'll switch to a BSD or something proprietary. Now, _you_ may not care, and have a "let them eat QNX" attitude, but that in turn shrinks the whole ecosystem for copyleft operating systems. Habitat reduction leads to exinction.
Tivoization and Linux Posted Oct 25, 2006 13:41 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Ignoring the fact that most of the Linux kernel is GPL v2 only... Common myth. Nothing of the Linux kernel was GPL v2 only before Linus single-handedly wrote his note on COPYING in the 2.4.0-test-something release. So what he did is making clear how he distributes the Linux kernel (under GPLv2 only), not how the original authors distributed their sources (and IIRC, a number of them responded right after he did that "we meant GPLv2 or later"). So, legally speaking, this is just a note from Linus, specifying the GPL version under which he chooses to redistribute the kernel, not a statement about under which license the original authors have put their code - Linus can't do that, because it's the original author who chooses the license. I've counted about 1/4 of the kernel now has deliberately "GPL version 2 (or any later)" notes, and 3/4 have nothing at all, which, according to the GPL, means the recipient can choose whatever version he feels like. One or two files have specific GPLv2-only comments inside. Note that Linus can't change the GPL. It's a copyright infringement to do so; and it violates the trust of the other kernel developers. The only thing he can do is provide interpretation (e.g. that running programs which call the kernel through the kernel ABI is use), or specify options (which version he uses for redistribution). Linus might think different of this topic, but this is a legal question, not a kernel hacker question. Using Linus as legal advisor isn't the best idea you can have.
Tivoization and Linux Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:26 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] All my contributions are specifically under GPLv2. Feel free toverify my identity over email.
Al Viro (viro [at] zeniv [dot] linux [dot] org [dot] uk)
PS: speaking of identities, what about you? My guess (based on your
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 8:31 UTC (Tue) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] From a compromise perspective it seems like you could go GPLv2 or any later license.
The problem with that is that people could include your code into GPLv3 only code and never give back. GPLv2 for me was never about living in a utopia, I liked the GPLv2 because I know people will try take advantage unless there are rules to make them give code back. With a dual license they don't have to give back under the same license and you have to rely on BSD license type trust.
For one of my projects, I combined 3 completely unrelated code bases. It was easy because all three code bases were GPLv2. It's going to be more difficult now because the GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible. What happens if QT goes GPLv3 but other KDE libraries are GPLv2 only? That will be a mess...
It's really even worse than that because there are incompatible extensions and optional bits that you can add to the GPLv3.
GPLvn+1 is always going to be "incompatible" with GPLvn... Posted Oct 24, 2006 9:37 UTC (Tue) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link] I'm not sure I've quite understood your arguement, in general any revision of a license is only going to be "compatible" one way - otherwise there is no point in changing the license!
As far as I can see - if you can move GPLv3 code to the terms and conditions for GPLv2, there is little motivation for changing the license at all.
In short I don't think the problem you are describing is new - you can add aditional permissions to GPLv2 and the same "compatability" arguement must have arisen with GPLv1 -> GPLv2....
GPLvn+1 is always going to be "incompatible" with GPLvn... Posted Oct 24, 2006 20:17 UTC (Tue) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] "Argument" is a bad word but I guess it's fair. :/
I'm just pointing out that there is some code that's going to be GPLv2 only (BusyBox, the Linux kernel), some that's going to be dual licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3 (most code probably) and some that is GPLv3 only (all FSF owned code probably). You can't mix GPLv2 and GPLv3 code.
Before everyone was sharing code. You had the apache license and that was incompatible. You had the Mozilla code but eventually that got relicensed. So you had exceptions, but the GPLv2 was by far the most popular license and you could share code without worrying.
My understanding from reading the kerneltrap article is that not all GPLv3 is compatible with other GPLv3 licensed code. That's really unfortunate.
GPLvn+1 is always going to be "incompatible" with GPLvn... Posted Oct 25, 2006 15:41 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] My understanding from reading the kerneltrap article is that not all GPLv3 is compatible with other GPLv3 licensed code. That's really unfortunate. Not true. GPLv3 has various optional clauses that the copyright author can choose to employ, but all of these options are written so that they are legally compatible (i.e. so that code written under two "variants" of GPLv3 can always be combined into one work using the union of the license restrictions). Thank the kernel developers for spreading this and other misinformation about GPLv3.
GPLvn+1 is always going to be "incompatible" with GPLvn... Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:12 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238
Actually the article was by Ciarán O'Riordan. He's an FSF Europe employee these days.
So explain to me, I've been told that there is GPLv3 extension that closes the ASP loop hole. So say I distributed my web program but I didn't use that extension. Then someone forked my code but did use that extension. Would I still be able to merge there code and remove the extra restriction?
I don't see how that is workable...
GPLvn+1 is always going to be "incompatible" with GPLvn... Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:47 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] I see — the problem is you, not the articles you read (although the kernel developer position paper spread the same misconception). You can still merge the code without the exception, or with any of the optional additional restrictions. The resulting code will have the additional restrictions (that's why I said you take the "union" of the restrictions). Now, you may be unwilling to accept the additional restrictions (which is what Ciaran was referring to when he said the kernel mainline wouldn't accept code with a Tivoization exception removed). But there is no legal obstacle to combining the code — you're confusing "social" incompatibilities with legal incompatibilities. The fact is, whenever you combine code under any two licenses, not just GPL versions, you always have to obey the union of the restrictions (if the restrictions could be removed, they wouldn't be restrictions, would they?). Saying that two licenses are "legally incompatible" means that the restrictions are contradictory, so that they can't be all obeyed simultaneously. All of the optional clauses of the GPLv3 are legally compatible, and implying otherwise is misinformation.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 9:41 UTC (Tue) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link] I may only be a lowly user (and author of a few bits of userspace stuff and a howto), but I must here disagree with Linus. Stallman is correct on GPL3, just like he was right before. After all, Stallman anticipated the danger of software patents, sees clearly the risks of DRM, and foresaw why BSD would always remain on the fringe.
Personally, I'd like it to go further (although I agree it is probably impractical). Namely, for the entire body of Free Software to prohibt use or copying by anyone involved in a patent lawsuit (except defensively), or for enforcing DRM.
Fundamentally, Free Software is about global co-operation. But there are some behaviours which seek to destroy this co-operation [DRM,patents,...] and it is essential to prevent them.
For example, I don't care at all if my Tivo (if I had one), or my mobile phone cannot be modified. But I'd be very upset if the iPod couldn't run Rockbox, or a new PC could only run a Microsoft-signed bootloader. The anti-tivoisation clause does matter!
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 13:59 UTC (Tue) by sobdk (guest, #38278) [Link] "For example, I don't care at all if my Tivo (if I had one), or my mobile phone cannot be modified. But I'd be very upset if the iPod couldn't run Rockbox, or a new PC could only run a Microsoft-signed bootloader. The anti-tivoisation clause does matter!"
But that is the problem. GPLv3 does nothing to prevent the two cases you DO care about. Your Apple is not using GPL code in their iPod firmware, so NOTHING is keeping them from locking it down with DRM so that you cannot run Rockbox. The same is true for your PC.
There are places to fight DRM, but in my opinion a software License is not one of them. I will choose to fight it with my wallet (I did not to buy a Tivo, and built a MythTV box), and by spreading the word about DRM much like the Defective by Design campaign
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 14:50 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] There are places to fight DRM, but in my opinion a software License is not one of them. I've seen this sentence many-many times - yet I don't get it. Why not ? Sure, software license is not perfect tool - but it's better then nothing. But it's not relevant if it's right place or not. The fact is: GPLv2 boldly proclaim that "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have" (try to read GPLv2 sometime, OK?). When someone advertises brand-new linux-based phone or some other gadget and later it becomes obvious that there are no easy way to hack it - it means GPL failed: manufacturer got a lot of rights from a lot of authors and failed to propagate them. DRM clause from first draft or GPLv3 indeed was too broad. But today - it just retells the same concept GPLv2 always included - but in more explicit form. I will choose to fight it with my wallet (I did not to buy a Tivo, and built a MythTV box), and by spreading the word about DRM much like the Defective by Design campaign May be it's better idea, may be not. I think it's the reason the broad DRM clause was removed from the second draft - the remaining is just the same "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have" GPLv2 always had - but in more explicit from.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 5:45 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Sure, software license is not perfect tool - but it's better then nothing.I disagree. This DRM issue has already proven very divisive. As written today, the GPLv3 seems pretty likely to fragment the free software community into even MORE incompatible source forks. If the FSF is going to accept such a risk I hope they do it for a better reason than "it's better than nothing!" try to read GPLv2 sometime, OK? Well that was rude. Why do you suppose the OP hasn't read the GPL? When someone advertises brand-new linux-based phone or some other gadget and later it becomes obvious that there are no easy way to hack it - it means GPL failed Not in my book. If the phone company makes their source code available to all (not just the customer like v2 requires), and especially if they contribute patches upstream like Tivo did, that seems like the GPL succeeding beautifully. If you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee you must give the recipients all the rights that you have" GPLv2 always had - but in more explicit from. Exactly. "By selling you this mobile phone, I give you souce code that went into it. You now have the right to build or buy a hardware platform to run it, just like I did." Seems to me the rights are identical.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 8:25 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Well that was rude. Why do you suppose the OP hasn't read the GPL?
The same reason as in your case: just parts of GPLv2 were recalled, not the whole thing. It can be called "scaning" or "glancing". It can not be called "reading". If the phone company makes their source code available to all (not just the customer like v2 requires), and especially if they contribute patches upstream like Tivo did, that seems like the GPL succeeding beautifully. Since you too have not read the GPLv2 I'll highligh this place for you: "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have". This was promise in preamble. The rest of the license was intended to clarify this preamble. Unfortunatelly it failed to do so. Utterly: phone company or Tivo kept some rights - but buyer of the device got no such rights at all (even if he got the software). You are right when you are saying GPL achieved something else - and may be it's good. But if failed to achieve stated goals! If this is not failure - then what is ? What Tivo "contributed upstream" - is not relevant. What is relevant is that GPL failed. Utterly. Totally. Without a question. If you don't understand it - then you've not read GPLv2. It's as easy as that. P.S. Do we need patch badly ebough to risk fragmentation and everything else ? It's good but quite different question. Then we need patch to make GPL work again - it's not in doubt. Yes, we do. Because GPLv2 can not achieve what it aspired to achieve.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 12:29 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "Utterly: phone company or Tivo kept some rights - but buyer of the device got no such rights at all (even if he got the software)."
Note that the user generally has exactly the same right as the manufacturer and distributor of the device, who generally has no right to modify the device after sale except with your permission.
In some cases the device is used with a service that requires, as a condition of service, that the user allow the service provider to push upgrades, but in many other cases only the user can choose to take or request upgrades.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 14:06 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] > Note that the user generally has exactly the same right as the manufacturer and distributor of the device, who generally has no right to modify the device after sale except with your permission.
I would like to believe that the rights relationship you describe above will remain the norm for the forseeable future, but I'm fairly certain that unless there is pushback, some version of the other scenario you present, and enforced by DRM, will quickly become commonplace for many "devices" - including personal computers.
Peter Yellman
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 12:50 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] What rights that Tivo has have they NOT given to their users? Tivo had theright to build a bit of hardware that runs a modified version of Linux... Their users have that same right... Tivo are giving out the modified code as they're required to, so anyone can take it and use it in their own Tivo-like machine, if they choose to... But, nowhere in the license is there a requirement (or even suggestion) that Tivo must let others run their own code on the hardware that Tivo designed and sold to people... You're trying to say that a software license should enforce rules about the usage of the hardware it runs on... That's just silly... (And, remember, since you're a self-proclaimed expert on every single detail of the GPL, you should recall the bit that says, "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted[...]"... So, if the mystery "right" you claim Tivo to have not passed onto their users is the right to run modified code on their Tivos, then you're talking about a "right" which is clearly far outside the scope (intended or otherwise) of the GPL, and therefore not one required to be passed on...)
Yes, it may be a bad thing from a user perspective to not be able to run
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 15:01 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Please read the GPL, you illiterate troll (TIC ;-). The GPL states in the preamble that there are four freedoms, and one is the freedom to study and modify the software. There already is software on a Tivo, so you get the right to modify it from the original author. The software on the Tivo to be run on the Tivo, that's the point of modifying (otherwise, you just modify a copy of the software, that's something different). Tivo has the right to do that, they have to give that to you, as well. And after all, it's your Tivo after you bought it, so you have aquired the necessary hardware. Some people might argue that the GPLv2 failed to protect this here. I'm not sure, IMHO it depends on the legal system. In Germany e.g., copyright licenses are first judged on the letter, and then on the intent. If there's no explicit clause for something, which the licensor did not forsee, the intent is still offers a fallback. Since Tivoizing software clearly fails to give what the GPL preamble promises, Tivoizing should be clearly illegal here. Now, Tivo AFAIK isn't selling their crap in Germany, and they don't plan to do so in the near-term future, so there's no point in suing them on German law. I'm feeling like this is a troll war where the Linux side always responds with "I can't understand you, shout louder!", though they are not deaf, but just don't let the words sink into their brain. And yes, I feel that people like Linus Torvalds never have really read, or even understood, what the GPL is and what it is about. They just took the license because it worked. But they don't know why it works. When I became a GNU project leader, I did invest some time to read all the legal stuff, like the GPL or the copyright transfer assignment to the FSF. I discussed a few difficult matters with RMS, where I couldn't answer the license issue doubts from some users (or at least the users didn't feel the answer was right - but RMS agreed on my interpretation). I think this exercise is worth doing, and I never could understand the mumbling of Linus towards FSF - all his arguments were clearly opposite to what I understood. I guess, they are simply wrong.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 15:49 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] > I'm feeling like this is a troll war where the Linux side always responds> with "I can't understand you, shout louder!", though they are not deaf, but > just don't let the words sink into their brain.
Funny, because that's exactly the feeling I'm getting from you and others on
> There already is software on a Tivo, so you get the right to modify it from
That's right, and Tivo gives you that right, by releasing the source code...
> The software on the Tivo to be run on the Tivo, that's the point of
No, you don't get it... RUNNING the software is NOT COVERED UNDER THE GPL!
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:37 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] >>RUNNING the software is NOT COVERED UNDER THE GPL!
It is not covered because Tivoisation kinds of restrictions were not present were not imagined when GPLv2 was written.
Remember in the beginning was the printer.
More importantly it is not there, because FSF believes that you have an absolute right to run the software even without accepting GPL.
>>It's clear the GPLv2 DOES not,
>> nor is it intended to
If others disagree thats fine.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 19:11 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] > We the Free Software community agree to this intrepretation, and want to> fix the license to close the loophole.
So, you speak for the entire community, do you? And, if anyone disagrees
I applaud the attempt to fix such situations, but I just think this is the
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:25 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] The problem is this. The FSF started the whole four freedoms of Free Software , and there is a community that agrees with FSF. The best name to call this community is "Free Software Community", if there is a better name I will gladly use it.
There are communities that dont agree to the 4 freedoms, or have different interpretations. Most (all?) of them have called themselves members of the Open Source Community.
There is no kicking out. And I am sorry if I offended you.
Regarding the practical stuff, maybe you are right. At which point there will still be a thriving GPLv2 ecosystem. No harm in trying to stop people from taking away freedom, which is what GPLv3 is trying to do. As RMS said "I wanted to create a free OS or die trying", that is simply an ethical position. And people who share the similar ethical positions must be allowed to write their own license?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:28 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] But, it is possible to support those freedoms, and even your explicit goalin this case, without also agreeing that it's a good idea to put such language into the GPL... I just think it's a wrong approach to solve the problem... If it would truly work as hoped, then sure it'd be great... But, I can't see any possible way it COULD work, and can only see it causing more harm than good... *shrug*
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:28 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] You are right that one can agree on the goals and differ on the tactics.
But there is one more step to the ethical concern Which is "I wont participate in subjugating users or taking away the freedom" that is also a reason to support GPLv3.
Remember in 1984 GPLv1/2 and the idea of GNU operating system can from ethical concerns/ideas, even if people thought they were "crazy radical" ideas.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:42 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > otherwise, you just modify a copy of the software, that's something different
That's all you can ever modify, unless you're the original author of the software and are messing with it at the byte level in your computer's memory. Everything else is just a copy.
RMS and others within FSF claim they have no problem with free software being distributed in ROM, because that's a case where nobody is capable of modifying the software. (Apparently they are blissfully ignorant of the market for copies -- sometimes modified -- of Apple ROMs for Apple II clone motherboards back in the early 1980s. Of course RMS was still writing the GNU manifesto at that point, the Apple II (and clones) was no doubt beneath his notice.) So to RMS, it's okay to distribute hardware with GPL'd software that the user can't modify -- apparently so long as the distributer can't modify it either.
Guess what -- Tivo can't modify the software in _your_ Tivo either...unless you give them permission.
So Tivo doesn't have any rights over the software in the box you bought from them that you don't have. It's a symmetric arrangement: you can't modify the software _in_that_box_ (you can elsewhere) without Tivo's permission, and Tivo can't modify the software _in_that_box_ without _your_ permission.
So what's the big deal?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:46 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] With regard to ROM, you could go to multiple people (not necessarily the original vendor) and ask/pay them to remove the ROM, and install a different one with your own software on it.
With Tivo only Tivo can install a new image, nobody else in the world can. The asymmetry is the problem for us.
If the asymmetry is not a problem for you, then thats fine. But your arguments that it is the same case as ROM are not convincing to us who dont want Tivoisation.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 19:17 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] > With regard to ROM, you could go to multiple people (not necessarily the> original vendor) and ask/pay them to remove the ROM, and install a > different one with your own software on it.
And, similarly, you could surely go to multiple people and ask them to
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:33 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] I can take the *same* hardware and get replacement free software (in ROM), same as the original vendor.
I cant take the *same* hardware and get replacement free software. But the TIVO can. That is the difference.
For ROM case: They can replace the ROM, I can do so.
The difference is in Freedom. They have the freedom, and I dont.
If you disagree thats fine. But that is no reason to stop GPLv3 or stop anti-tivoisation clause in GPLv3
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:35 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] Well, sure, if you want to call ROM software instead of hardware, which isa bit of a stretch... It's "firmware", so a bit of both, I guess...
Ok, so what is it in Tivo that prevents one from running modified code?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:40 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] The point is that they dont need to replace anything physical. But to run free software I need to hack HW.
I dont have a problem if that DRM HW prevented their own proprietary SW from running. I have a problem with when it prevents free software from running.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 26, 2006 0:07 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] That is true. So, would you be happy if the manufacturer included a switch (perhaps inside the battery case) that prevented new software from being flashed? That way, the manufacturer can prevent you from loading new software without their permission, and you can prevent the manufacturer from loading new software without your permission. Equal rights for everybody!
Would this be satisfactory?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 26, 2006 21:19 UTC (Thu) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] Lets go back to the ROM case.
Do I need to take permission from the manufacturer to replace the ROM? No.
The same should be true going forward as well.
BTW: This is my last post on this thread, I am sure we will continue the conversation elsewhere.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:48 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] If the DRMed part is socketed, you can replace it with a free one. Just like the ROM.
If the DRMed part is soldered down, you can unsolder it and replace it with a free one. Like the ROM.
If the DRMed part is masked in (like the Xbox), you're probably SOL without going to TSMC. Just like the ROM.
Where do you see a difference?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:37 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] Who has the keys matters right?
With ROM the manufacturer has to physically replace the ROM. The same as me.
With TIVOisaztion I have to hack the hardware (like you mentioned), and they dont have to. They are free to happily replace "free software" which is not the same as me.
The "free software" that they give, is not free software to me.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:21 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Since you too have not read the GPLv2 I'll highligh this place for you: "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have".Exactly. Read my original post again. The recipient of a Tivo box DOES have all the rights that Tivo did. I shall elaborate. Let's say Tivo obtains source code from upstream. They didn't obtain hardware or porting help or anything like that. They obtained ONLY source code. Now they are required to send their source code downstream. And they do so, happily. Because they only received source code from upstream, they are only obligated to send source code downstream. If you want to run Tivo's modified source code, you are going to have to provide a hardware platform to run it on. Just like Tivo had to do. Unfortunatelly it failed to do so. Utterly: phone company or Tivo kept some rights - but buyer of the device got no such rights at all (even if he got the software). Specifically what rights did Tivo receive that you are not in turn receiving from Tivo? They did not receive flashable hardware, so why should you force them to provide it? Tivo's software is available and modifiable and running on non-Tivo computers all over the world. Where is the problem? What is relevant is that GPL failed. Utterly. Totally. Without a question. That's your opinion and it seems awfully pessimistic to me. Given the incredible diversity of hardware devices running GPLed software, and the large companies all collaborating and contributing code back to free projects, I can arrive at no other conclusion than the GPL has succeeded amazingly well. If you don't understand it - then you've not read GPLv2. It's as easy as that. Hm. At least attempt to keep this discussion respectful?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:59 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] Dave Miller wrote
"For example, polling on what the kernel developers thought about "keying of the Linux kernel" in the way that Tivo does would have been much more interesting. In my opinion, I believe you would have seen about an even split down the middle on this one. But even the people who are against keying think that the DRM language in the GPL v3 meant to combat this is not done correctly.
Several kernel developers believe that GPL v2 already has enough language to make restrictions such as keying be not allowed."
Alan Cox
So there are people who think that users should receive the right to run modified software on their hardware.
Tivo is reserving the right to modify my hardware, and hence the freedom to run modified versions is curtailed.
{GNU/,}Linux naming Posted Oct 24, 2006 16:41 UTC (Tue) by guinan (subscriber, #4644) [Link] Leaving rationial arguments aside (the debate could go on endlesslyit seems), and looking at this from a subjective marketing angle, "GNU" is a butt-ugly name.
Consider when a neophyte first encounters GNU, pronounces it "new"
Plain "Linux" sounds cool and sexy, and slapping "GNU/" in front of
Not to demean the importantance of software freedom, but it might be
{GNU/,}Linux naming Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:22 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > Isn't that CLEVER? ("um, what's recursion?"). Is this going to make "normal" people interested, or turn them off? I believe the latter.
I've noticed that rather childish naming with a lot of GNU projects (like the kernel name -- "Hurd", what's up with that? Everytime I see it I think "hurl curd". Gross!).
But not just GNU -- for example, KDE with their "k" fixation. Oh well.
KDE knaming Posted Oct 24, 2006 19:03 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] KDE is a particular pain. I've come to think of it as Klunky Kapplikation Knames.
You put it the right way Posted Oct 24, 2006 19:17 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] I think the whole naming issue is taken far too seriously. Yes I acknowledge that the GNU stuff is a very important piece of my system, sure not less important than the kernel or the X window System and KDE desktop.
But when talking to my father or a colleague at work, I for sure won't say "GNU slash Linux" all the time, am I crazy? "Linux" is short, cool and sexy and everybody knows that the whole distribution is meant.
The only usable alternative would be to call it SUSE and my colleagues' system kubuntu. These names would be even more precise than GNU/Linux but again would only give one participating party credit.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 24, 2006 21:43 UTC (Tue) by juriise (guest, #38305) [Link] I can understand both sides of the Linux - FSF split easily. From the Linux point of view, their center is the kernel and the needs of the kernel, which is the compiler, the clib and a few utilities. From their point of view, all parts of the system, except the kernel, is exchangable.
From the FSF point of view, the goal is to create a complete system with free software. Who owns the different parts, is secondary to that goal, and the the projects wants to name parts, all of them free software, which will comprise the system. The FSF at some time chose Linux to be the kernel. It also chose X to be the window system, for example. All parts of the system is exchangable, of course each part must be echanged with a good, as free or freer part.
So far so good. For me, it is quite clear that the licence that Linux is governed by, is the main reason why Linux is the kernel that is in the wind now. Linus's work is also important of course. Cleary, Linus's opinion for the time beeing is that the license really should be BSD'ish. We have seen other examples of using a free and copyleft licence to get resources, then to come forward with one's real intensions. Well, this doesn't matter as the license is the important thing.
I draw two conclusions from this. One, Linus's natural authority is astonishing. How else can so many smart people put forward these arguments which have no logic? Two, the importance of public relations. I find that Stallmanns PR work, like calling the system the GNU system, with /Linux appended to give extra credit to that important part of the system, and chiming on the Free-theme, is really important.
You wold probably guess by now that I am pro v3, especially the DRM part. In fact, I suggest that it would be smart by now to wait until V3 is ready to release new programs, so that one can use V3 or later instead of V2 or later.
The economics of DRM-protected products is quite easy to describe. If Tivo can not use Free Software, they must either go proprietary or leave the market, but that only creates a opportunity for others to enter that market.
May be the consumer can vote out DRM with his crowns (hey, I am not a USAian), but anyway Free Software is stronger than ever before and this is not the time to weaken the pressure, this is the time to tighten up.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 3:00 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] The FSF at some time chose Linux to be the kernel. It also chose X to be the window systemBetter check your history. The FSF was never involved in assembling early Linux distros. It was vast legions of hackers, Slack, Yggdrasil, Red Hat, etc. who made these decisions. They tended to choose glibc and the GNU coreutils because they had very high quality code and good licenses. The FSF didn't try to get directly involved in Linux distributions until much later. Debian is perhaps an exception... While Ian Murdock clearly intended to follow the GNU Project's ideology when he founded the project, I don't think Debian has ever officialy became a part of the GNU Project itself. At least, I can't find any Debian software on the GNU web or FTP sites. Therefore, I don't think even Debian's monumental efforts from 1993-1997 can be attributed to the GNU Project. Of course, since I was only on the fringe, I'll let more qualified people speak to this one. Cleary, Linus's opinion for the time beeing is that the license really should be BSD'ish. That's flat out wrong of course. http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/24/246 How else can so many smart people put forward these arguments which have no logic? That's a bizarre and insulting thing to say. One possibility, perhaps, is that these people have a better understanding of the situation than you do?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 8:49 UTC (Wed) by juriise (guest, #38305) [Link] "Better check your history. The FSF was never involved in assembling early Linux distros. It was vast legions of hackers, Slack, Yggdrasil, Red Hat, etc. who made these decisions."
Well this only illustrates the different view angle. FSF through the GNU project is about creating a complete unix-like operating system from the collection of free software that is available. FSF only starts hacking when an important piece is missing, an no other party implements it as free software. At some point in time GNU chose Linux to be the kernel for that project, for the GNU system. From the start it was clear that a kernel was needed. They started Hurd, but that was not progressing fast enough. Then they chose Linux to be the kernel for the GNU system.
It is perfectly ok to use other view angles, like the Linux angle or some distributions angle. There should be no need to fight over this.
So why do I use the FSF and GNU angle for my part? Because I happen to believe that the things that the FSF care about is the important thing in current computer history. Also because this affects me as a user and computer consultant. I think the freedom aspect, the licences, the GNU system is the important things, Linux is important but not that much important. This has nothing to do with lines of code count or degree of complexity. I also think public relations is important, therefore it matters what views are expressed, what names are used and so on.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 10:11 UTC (Wed) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324) [Link] Linus writes in that post:
> And that's what the GPLv2 is. It's "fair". It asks everybody -
Apart from all the discussions in this thread, what I don't understand is why Linus (and others, apparently) don't seem to think that the tivo thing disregards this "fair" aspect. Is it because tivo is obliged to give their source code back, and thus has already returned their "fair" part to the community?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 12:20 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Apparently you do understand it! Giving back your changes is what they think is a fair exchange for basing your work on theirs.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 15:02 UTC (Wed) by Luud (subscriber, #21831) [Link] I don't own a Tivo and don't live in the US, so I have to start with some assumptions from what I've been able to read about it. Let us for argument's sake assume the list below is true, and it is the whole truth. (We know it isn't all that, but otherwise we would have to write a book about it, or maybe many volumes). Don't start arguing on the Tivo or GPL details, but try to grasp the general concept. I'm not saying what is right or wrong. I don't know that answer, but I guess the answer may be different for varying situations. Assumptions: 1. Tivo ships hardware with accompanying software to make it work. Now, given the above three assumptions, you are still free to do with the Tivo software as you like. You can rebuild the system and change it to fit your needs, which includes changing it to run on other hardware. However, you are not free to do with the hardware as you like. *) So if you are saying that Tivoisation is bad and should be prevented by the software license, you are effectively saying that the hardware on which you are running the software should be as free as the software itself.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:52 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] "So if you are saying that Tivoisation is bad and should be prevented by the software license, you are effectively saying that the hardware on which you are running the software should be as free as the software itself."
That way of putting it is a bit misleading. The objection is not to any proprietary aspect of the hardware but rather to specially crafted aspects that effectively prohibit reprogramming of the software. Consider an analogy between free software and the famous story of the "stone soup". In the story, the soup gets created by having everyone who wanted to eat contribute ingredients. What if someone had contributed a magical ingredient that only allowed the resulting soup to be eaten in their private room? That would clearly go against the intent of the collaboration, so the soup organizers would be justified in prohibiting it. This is something very different from requiring that every contributor give up ownership or trade secrets in all the pottery or utensils they may incidentally make use of.
Unfortunately, one could argue that some of the anti-patent stuff in GPLv3 is more like the contrasting examples.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 17:59 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] >>but that's nitpicking. As with all freedom, your freedom ends where it impedes someone else's freedom.
And someone elses freedom has the right to say what I run in my home. Great.
Lets get over this argument. It has gone nowhere.
Lets just say some people who used GPLv2(or later) consider Tivoisation wrong. Others dont. We have a fork in the road and people can choose to follow whichever path they choose. Okay?
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:08 UTC (Wed) by Luud (subscriber, #21831) [Link] If you quote me, please quote in full, so please add: "You have to find a middle way."You can indeed argue that someone else's freedom ends when we come into your home, at the least in the case of running software on the Tivo. So this is a mute point, because I think we agree on the basics. Although poeple who choose GPLv2 do not necessarily think Tivoisation is wrong (like the kernel maintainers), poeple choosing the GLPv3 probably do. At least that's how I understand it.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:52 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] "For example, polling on what the kernel developers thought about "keying of the Linux kernel" in the way that Tivo does would have been much more interesting. In my opinion, I believe you would have seen about an even split down the middle on this one." -Dave Miller (kernel hacker)
You are right that not everybody who choose GPLv2 think Tivoisation is wrong. But as you can see above not all kernel hackers agree with that idea.
You are right in saying that "people choosing GPLv3 probably do". Even there not everybody agrees, I am sure there are people who like parts of it, but dont like other parts. When so many parties are involved not everybody will what they want
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 2, 2006 23:38 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] >1. Tivo ships hardware with accompanying software to make it work.
Tivo sells you hardware with accompanying software.
>3. Tivo does not allow you to run software on their hardware if it is
Tivo does not allow you to run software on your hardware if it is
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 13:13 UTC (Wed) by juriise (guest, #38305) [Link] Me: Cleary, Linus's opinion for the time beeing is that the license really should be BSD'ish.
You:That's flat out wrong of course. http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/24/246
Ok, accepted. He likes the "give back" effect, which is not expressed in the BSD-ish licences.
Me: How else can so many smart people put forward these arguments which have no logic?
You: That's a bizarre and insulting thing to say. One possibility, perhaps, is that these people have a better understanding of the situation than you do?
Perhaps. Some no-logic arguments are: Not accept that FSF can name their system to their liking, V3 draft not in the same spirit as V2, request two way compatibility between V3 and V2, RMS is not the one to finally decide on V3, the process of developing V3 is not open and broad.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:19 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] >Not accept that FSF can name their system to their liking,Their system? The only reference I can find on the FSF web site is this quote on the front page: "The FSF promotes the development and use of free software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant." Whose GNU/Linux variant? FSF's, I guess. No major distributor seems to be providing a "GNU Operating System" (althought that may be what Debian is offering with their "GNU/Linux"). I can't seem to find anywhere on FSF's web site that I can download this system (ideally an .iso) from, or order GNU OS CDs from. There doesn't even seem to be any reference on the FSF's Online Order Form page, and their "Deluxe Distribution" doesn't seem to include any kind of kernel. (Although interestingly their Source CD includes decidedly non-GNU packages, including XFree86.) It's also virtually impossible to find anything like the LSB or the Single Unix Specification that defines just what goes into the GNU Operating System. The GNU.org page is a little big more blatant. The page refers to the GNU Operating System and goes on to say: "Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel called Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as 'Linux', they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems." Astonishingly, though, neither GNU nor FSF produce any of these variants, so to say that they are "more accurately" called GNU/Linux is like saying that the version of GCC that, say, RedHat includes on their distros should be more accurately called Linux/gcc. Not that GNU has a Linux kernel anywhere to be found on its pages either. They reference the FSF's page of "All GNU Packages", which does indeed list a kernel: Hurd. The Hurd page describes itself this way: "The GNU Hurd is the GNU project's replacement for the Unix kernel. The Hurd is a collection of servers that run on the Mach microkernel to implement file systems, network protocols, file access control, and other features of Unix kernels like Linux" (emphasis added). So, GNU and FSF are claiming (above) that Linux is a Unix kernel. Now, since GNU's Not Unix, there can't possibly exist something called "GNU/Linux"; it's an oxymoron. Sure, FSF can name their operating system, GNU OS, anything they like(*). But Linux isn't their operating system. (*Within bounds of trademark law, of course -- they'd get a nasty letter from Microsoft's lawyers if they tried renaming Cygwin to GNU/Windows)
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 17:53 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] And Linux is NOT an operating system. Its a _kernel_
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:42 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Linux is the kernel around which many operating systems coalesced (Slack, Debian, Red Hat, etc). Thus it's quite accurate to call these operating systems "Linux-based distributions", or "Linux" for short. Over time, depending on context, "Linux" started referring to many things: the Linux kernel, any Linux-based distribution, an amazingly successful development model, a particular server architecture, the boxes in the server room, etc.Nobody actually chose this usage. It coalesced organically along with the software. Well, it was organic until a few people started trying to convince everybody that they should be called GNU/Linux distributions. And then things got a little weird. :)
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:43 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link] True it was organic. But calling it "Linux" only gives the linux kernel credit and leaves GNU and FSF out in the cold.
I dont see what the problem with calling it GNU+Linux is, they want some credit when you distribute Linux+GNU+other things. And therefore it is OK to give them credit.
I agree with Alan Cox that there might be misunderstanding when people say GNU/Linux because people might think that Linux kernel is a project of FSF.
Also the following article might clear some things up.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:13 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Let me see... I have the choice between calling something by a clear name and leaving the majority of its developers in the cold, or calling something by a stupid sounding name and leaving the majority of its developers in the cold? Well, I know which one I choose.
If this GNU/change came about organically I might be more receptive to it. But since the FSF is lobbying everyone to give THEMSELVES more recognition, this sounds more like a poorly thought out publicity stunt than a solution to any sort of problem. I wish the FSF would spend its time on more worthy endeavors.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:38 UTC (Thu) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] >If this GNU/change came about organically I might be more receptive to it. But since the FSF is lobbying everyone to give THEMSELVES more recognition, this sounds more like a poorly thought out publicity stunt than a solution to any sort of problem. I wish the FSF would spend its time on more worthy endeavors.
It was organically in a way. It started with one guy who noticed that the philosophies of two seperate groups working on the same system had drifted apart, so he suggested this rift in thinking be represented in the name.
Yes, "Linux" is catchier and has more commercial momentum. So it is far more marketable than the somewhat clunky "GNU/Linux" or "GNU".
Fun and sharing are important in hacking, but to some not nearly as important as the underlying values of freedom the software freedoms represent.
Some value the four freedoms more than popularity and as such try to convey the intellectual legacy of the FSF by calling their os after as what they see as its most important asset, which is its ethical message and not its technical superiority nor its commercial viability.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:22 UTC (Wed) by juriise (guest, #38305) [Link] > Their system?Yes, the GNU system, the GNU operating system. People make up names all the time.
Linux is owned by the creators, but it is free, and
> No major distributor seems to be providing a "GNU Operating System" (althought that may be what Debian is offering with their "GNU/Linux")
Yes, the distributions make up names too. The Debian GNU/Linux clearly refers to the GNU name. Others don't, some don't refer to Linux either in their name.
Do you require FSF make a distribution by itself? Should they not use Linux in the name at all? Why is that up to you or others? I don't get it.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:46 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] The OP's post seemed clear to me. In reply to your two points:
1. The problem is the FSF's continuing lobbying trying to get everyone to call Linux distributions "GNU/Linux".
2. When the FSF makes its own Linux distribution they can of course call it whatever they want. Today, however, FSF is taking an annoying amount of interest in perfectly valid names that other people choose for their own distributions.
GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) Posted Oct 25, 2006 23:32 UTC (Wed) by juriise (guest, #38305) [Link] This has been ridiculus for a while...
Both rejecting and accepting your statement 1 and statement 2 forces me to accept that it really is a Linux distribution. Well I happen to think that the freedom for the user is the main point. I could call them Operating systems distributed using the GNU General Public License brought to you by the Free Software Foundation, famous for creating fine operating system software since.., supplier of software to the Queen. The problem is that lots of people walk around using other names.
|
|||||||||||||