Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
CRN has published a
lengthy look at the GPLv3 debate. "An eventual detente is what
open-source evangelist Bruce Perens predicts. 'There's usually about a
two-year cycle where Linus [Torvalds] and some people have trouble with
something, and then they work it out,' said Perens, who co-founded the Open
Source Initiative. 'Despite their kicking and screaming, they eventually
will go to GPL 3.'"
(Log in to post comments)
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 21:27 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] ""A piece he posted to Groklaw laying out his objections to the update was removed by Groklaw's maintainer, who wrote, "I am sorry, Linus, but I had to remove your comment because you violated our comments policy by swearing so much." """
I'm glad they featured this. It demonstrates Miss Jones' peculiar form of censorship. She scans the post for anything that anyone could possibly consider offensive, and removes it if she thinks anyone might possibly agree.
One has to wonder is she is actually doing crochet when she indulges herself that way.
Her recent behavior almost makes one feel sorry for poor Maureen O'Gara, whose career Pamela destroyed a while back, as you may recall.
Almost. Maureen is as bad as Pamela, and my sympathy can only be spread so thin...
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 22:35 UTC (Thu) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285) [Link] I don't see what you are trying to accomplish with your post. I thinkGPL2/3 discussion is important, and I think it deserves at least the quality of discussion I've seen you contribute before, and that lwn.net normally gets.
(I have nothing against vitriolic/scathing writing per se, and in fact
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 10:40 UTC (Fri) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
It's called "trolling", although the particular troll you responded to seems awfully close to "defamation of character". Its zeal may have overwhelmed its sense of self-preservation.
Linus comments Posted Jan 26, 2007 15:06 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] Linus' comments with profanity were deleted, but the ones that he reposted without profanity stayed. It appears that she's trying to keep the debate civil. Imperfectly, perhaps, but it's her website, and I have every reason to believe she's a reasonable person.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 22:38 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] >One has to wonder is she is actually doing crochet when she indulges herself that way.
So nice of you to cast aspersions on an ancient art form to provide yourself a smug dismissal of anybody that tries to maintain a civil, mature conversation online.
I guess some people can't stand it when someone actually insists that people stretch their minds enough to avoid orc-speech. The civility that Pam enforces on Groklaw is a welcome relief to me and a great number of others that grow weary of the endless stream of tedious, unthinking profanity that provides a cheap substitute for persuasive eloquence.
>whose career Pamela destroyed a while back, as you may recall.
I think it was more a case of Ms. O'Gara stepping way over the line, and getting properly smacked for it.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 22:58 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Censorship? She censored exactly three words, which contributed nothing to Linus's argument. If you'd followed the link in the story you'd have known that, so I assume you're from slashdot.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:09 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I disagree with PJ about the GPLv3 and I think she's gone way over board on her anti Novell thing.
But still it's her own website and she can do whatever she wants with it. She's been up front that she deletes comments.
MoG destroyed her own career through her constant lying and hatefulness.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:54 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """MoG destroyed her own career through her constant lying and hatefulness. """
I used to think as you do.
But now I wonder if Miss Jones is not cleverer than any of us realize.
The woman scares me. She is not what she seems.
And I find myself wondering... like Maureen did... just who *is* Pamela Jones?
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:30 UTC (Fri) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] You sound a little obsessed. Didn't MoG stalk PJ or something? Perhaps you need to take a break from her.
PJ goes overboard once in a great while but always seems to be transparent in her arguments, unlike the usual entities that she comments upon.
I think it is really cool that she has been able to maintain her privacy -- good for her.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:40 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """You sound a little obsessed. """
No. I fell for Little Miss Innocent's "I can't stand profanity!" stance for years.
She goes overboard uncomfortably often.
And there is something very, very opaque about her.
Not obsessed. Just disenchanted and curious...
-Steve
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 8:19 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Hooray speculative attacks on character!
So, GPL3?
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 1, 2007 16:01 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] So when PJ was on-side about SCO she was a saint; now she's chosen the "wrong" side in the GPL debate, she's at best a batty old woman, at worst an career-wrecking censorious harridan.
Riiiight. I'm now going to make the same mode of argument against you that you made against her: You're a misogynistic horse's arse.
Not very useful, is it?
"Maureen O'Gara, whose career Pamela destroyed"
As I recall, Ms O'Gara destroyed her own career by getting so cross with PJ that she published her contact details and invited her readers to harrass her in person.
Have you *seriously* just equivocated 'deleting a comment with a clear explanation of why' with 'trying to summon a lynch mob'?
"She scans the post for anything that anyone could possibly consider offensive, and removes it if she thinks anyone might possibly agree."
Right, so enforcing a stated comments policy without exception or favour is "censorship"?
Of course it isn't. Her site; her rules; she doesn't owe anyone a platform, not even Linus (or RMS); and someone who prides themselves on their objectivity is hardly likely to endanger that by exempting famous names from a stated comments policy.
Come back with some examples of where she has explicitly refused to enforce the same comments policy, and you might have a point. Until then... see above, with particular reference to equine hindquarters.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 21:38 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] "There's usually about a two-year cycle where Linus [Torvalds] and some people have trouble with something, and then they work it out"
That's very funny coming from you, Bruce. How's Novell? You kicked and screamed about that one like time was going to stand still then pfft. Nothing. Your tantrum lasted all of two weeks.
At least the Linux kernel guys stick to their guns for months or years.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 21:52 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond are of a piece.
Neither one of them have actually *done* anything for the community. But they both perceive OSS to be their ticket to fame.
At least Eric had Fetchmail. All Bruce had was busybox, which he recently tried to wrench back from the current maintainer's hands.
I think he may have actually succeeded. Doesn't make me think higher of him, though.
-Steve
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 22:16 UTC (Thu) by davidm (subscriber, #35) [Link] Nope, the old maintainer "Rob Landley", moved on to other projects, he got tired of Bruce's hassles. The new maintainer "Denis Vlasenko" was one of the current contributors to the project, so Bruce is still not associated with the project except for his long past association.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 5:04 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] David,
I stand corrected. ;-)
-Steve
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 22:28 UTC (Thu) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] I beg to differ. This is mere character assassination and abuse.
Raymond may have become a one-trick pony who has drifted away from current relevance, but Bruce has certainly taken a different path -- one which has brought him far closer to the FSF's camp. As such, he's shown personal growth and contributed to political discussions consistently on a progressive front. To say that Bruce and Raymond are of the same cloth is to neglect the very significant differences that have developed in their positions -- it illustrates that the critic is either ignorant of or deliberately disingenous towards the history.
Thank you, Bruce, for your continued relevance and integrity, and your willingness to spend a great deal of your time lending a sane and thoughtful voice to the debates framing the philosophy of free software.
Don Barry,
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 23:16 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Their positions may well be different, and Perens may be closer to the FSF than ESR, but the criticism of the GP was that both ESR and Perens have proved to be good at talking but at little else. You offer nothing to rebut that criticism.
RMS is taken seriously not because of his polemical writing, but because of his actual contributions to free software, starting from emacs and gcc.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 23:32 UTC (Thu) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242) [Link] Why is it that contribution can only be measured in code? I think RMS did a great contribution by writing GPL, by forming FSF and by traveling around the world driving the politics of free software.
Similarily I think ESR has contributed a great deal through his writings and by his involvement in the Netscape/Mozilla deal.
I know to little about Bruce to comment though.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:52 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """Why is it that contribution can only be measured in code?"""
Because code is what counts. The rest is fluff.
Talk is cheap. Code is hard. It's real work.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 9:43 UTC (Fri) by bug1 (subscriber, #7097) [Link] "Talk is cheap. Code is hard. It's real work."
You obviously dont understand teamwork.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 16:14 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """You obviously dont understand teamwork. """
Teamwork is foremost on my mind.
Problem is... the path to fame is shorter for an advocate than for a coder.
Sure, Linus achieved fame... without really seeming like he wanted it. (Though he does, a little, I suspect.) But look at the hard work involved. And all the uncertainty.
But then we have these self-proclaimed pop icons crop up like Eric, Bruce, and Pamela.
All three being first and foremost into their own fame and notoriety. (The lady doth protest too much, methinks.)
There is a reason that Plato decided that the philosopher kings would have to be put into their positions *despite* their own wishes.
I automatically rate someone producing code higher than someone expending the same level of effort promoting themselves as advocates.
This is not to say that advocates are bad. It is simply a position that is more easily (and frequently) abused.
I hope that clarifies my position, whether I'm agreed with or not. ;-)
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:34 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] It seems a tad peculiar for one `into [her] own fame' to start by...concealing her identity. In fact it seems like you've just contradicted yourself.
(It's also interesting that you consider Groklaw to involve no work.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 18:22 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Nix,
I didn't say it required no work. I said it was the shorter path to fame.
At any rate, to bicker would go against my own goals, and I think yours, too.
We might disagree upon this or that. We might trust and distrust different people.
I've expressed my suspicions. That's enough. I may be right. And I may be wrong. And I hope I'm wrong.
I'm in favor of solidarity. To argue my point further would not serve that purpose.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 20:47 UTC (Fri) by bug1 (subscriber, #7097) [Link] "Problem is... the path to fame is shorter for an advocate than for a coder."
There is a saying, "those who make the most noise get the most done", it is an old saying, its not specific to coders, it applies to everything.
Ive read a bit of plato's republic, i would imaging them talking about this topic like this...
Would you have those naturally gifted in the abilities of an advocate spending their time coding, and those naturally gifted as a coder spending their time being an advocate ?
Fame certainly would help an advocate get their message to a larger audience, so fame lends itself to the advocate. It would be a very unsuccessful advocate that was not well known.
So let us say the best advocates need to be famous.
2nd person) And what of the coder, what abilities should they be endowed with ?
Certainly not jealously for it does not benefit anyone, i would say they should need be gifted in logic and concentration. Indeed being famous may impede the coders concentration from the constant interruptions from fans and foes.
2nd person) But has not the great coder as much right to be famous as the great athlete or the great advocate ?
True, the coder has a right to be famous, im just saying it doesnt help them produce work.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 1, 2007 9:28 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] I thougth it was: "Empty barrels make the most noise."
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 14:51 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I think you're wrong, but I think you've explained why the GPL works.
The best licence is one that developers don't have to think about when they're developing, but which they also don't have to worry about when they want to enforce it.
The GPL has made development and enforcement so safe and problem-free that if someone didn't think about it, they could easily think it wasn't there or that it was just fluff.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 16:27 UTC (Fri) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] Neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 are "code". Therefore, by your definition, theyare unimportant. Yet you're still trolling about them.
> Talk is cheap.
Paranoid ranting about people you've never met is apparently free.
I haven't met PJ in person, but I have spoken to her on the phone. This
I deeply disagree with PJ's advocacy of GPLv3. I think she's wrong. Then
Grow up.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:25 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Rob,
Thanks for expending the effort to maintain busybox. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Most of your users do not even know your name. Some of us do.
My ranting is not paranoid. At least, I hope it's not! ;-) I have no problem with our agreeing to disagree.
I'm worried about the motivations of some of our OSS luminaries. If that is paranoid then so be it.
Fourteen years ago, I was naive enough to think that the Internet was going to give us all the ability to communicate with each other and make the world a wonderful place for everyone.
I didn't even consider the possibility of spam, an Internet bubble, etc.
I'm a little more suspicious than I was back in those days.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 29, 2007 17:05 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Fourteen years ago, I was naive enough to think that the Internet was going to give us all the ability to communicate with each other and make the world a wonderful place for everyone.Lots of people wished that. In earlier times, people thought that the balloon, dynamite, the tank, nuclear weapons and even the telephone and radio would 'naturally end war' because everyone could communicate so of course they'd all agree. It seems to be easy for techies to forget that people have differing goals (since we're all such nice people, doncha know), and that some people have goals such as 'maximize my personal power base' that contradict everyone else's.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 30, 2007 17:48 UTC (Tue) by rgoates (guest, #3280) [Link] Nix, well put. I can often sympathize with those who indulge in utopian thinking. I wish some of those utopias were practical. But naivete regarding human nature is troubling; worse, it can be dangerous.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 23:48 UTC (Thu) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285) [Link] I think the open source movement does need *some* people who specialize intalking and writing. For a couple reasons:
1. Coders often don't consistently have the time, inclination, or skill to
One example: Very few science fiction writers have done much science per
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:58 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] GCC and Emacs are very valuable (and all too often underestimated) contributions, but they're the smallest of RMS' work in the long run. Code is not everything.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 8:30 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] "You know, I'd vote for that politician, but I just don't know how well they <i>code</i>"
Some people are good at code, some people are good at writing, and a few people are good at both. Why not let members of our community do what they like doing? If Bruce is a good writer, why should anyone care what his code looks like?
A great benefit of our community is the ability for any member to go off and do whatever they want. We should not attempt to remove that benefit by claiming control over fellow members' activities.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:56 UTC (Fri) by charris (subscriber, #13263) [Link] "As such, he's shown personal growth and contributed to political discussions consistently on a progressive front."
No need to insult the man. I'm sure he's a nice person despite all that.
Although Linus doesn't like the GPL-v3, he has also said it is simply not possible to change the license anyway on account of the numerous contributors who would need to give their permission. So it's the best of all possible worlds. KISS is the word.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 15:04 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Relicensing is possible, it could be done over a 2-year timeframe. I wrote about how before. After writing that, I was told it's even easier than I thought. Relicensing doesn't actually require that permission be gotten from 100% of the copyright holders. About 95% is enough, and then you have to remove any of the 5% if a relevent owner complains. This is how the Mozilla codebase was relicensed to MPL+GPL despite taking public contributions for years.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 29, 2007 13:58 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Please, please stop circulating this myth. Linux single-handedly "relicensed" Linux to GPLv2-only in 2.4.0-test-something, without asking any other contributor. Why on earth should he need to ask the contributors now? It either was illegal then (then Linux is still GPLv2 or later), or it is legal now for him to decide. Actually, my interpretation of Linus' comment is that he is redistributing Linux currently under GPLv2, but he just can't speak for the other contributors. They have to speak for themselves, or if they fail to, the standard assumption from the GPLv2 is true ("or any later version unless stated otherwise"). So the only part of Linux which actually is legally GPLv2 only are those parts made by Linux himself, and this should be the least problem when he changes his mind. Linus just uses that argument since he doesn't like the GPLv3. Let's wait for two years, and then he'll forget about this argument, as well.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 29, 2007 20:25 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Myth?
forthy, The "or later" has never been a part of the GPL; it's only a suggestion. Therefore, if "GPLv2 or later" doesn't appear in your project's declared license, then your project is GPLv2 only.
I can confidently say that "or later" has never appeared in any kernel release ever. It's always been GPLv2 only. Linus just added language in 2.4.0test-something clarifying that fact. Nothing was relicensed.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 5, 2007 19:27 UTC (Mon) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] How confidently?
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/v0.99/lin...
gerv@otter:linux$ grep -A2 "Software Foundation" kernel/blk_drv/scsi/fdomain.c
gerv@otter:linux$
The "or later" language lives (or doesn't) in the header of each individual file, not in the COPYING file. If it's there and you remove it, you are arguably removing a right granted by the previous copyright holders - the right to use their contributions under later versions of the GPL. I'm not sure if you can actually do that.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 6, 2007 14:02 UTC (Tue) by notamisfit (guest, #40886) [Link] Something like two thirds of the kernel header files only have copyright notices, with no mention of license.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 10:17 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] The GPL covers this lazyness: "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." So for two third of the files in Linux, you can choose any version ever published, they are essential compatible with GPLv1, v2, or once v3 is released, with v3, as well. "The Program" is legally a file, not the complete kernel. Only the complete kernel, the collection of many "programs", as distributed by Linux has this v2-only tag.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 17:17 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] COPYING does specify a version. If you're thinking of the files without a GPL included and if you don't believe COPYING applies to those files, then you have no license at all to those files. Your choice is GPLv2 or nothing.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 18:32 UTC (Mon) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] COPYING does not specify a version as far as I can see:http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING
I believe COPYING applies to all unheadered files, and the latter part of Section 9 specifically: "If the Program does not specify a version number of
Gerv
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 20:15 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] It's right there at the top:GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 20:34 UTC (Mon) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] Indeed. The document does contain a copy of the GNU General Public License version 2. But it also says that you should put the boilerplate on to apply the new terms to your license, and what happens if the boilerplate isn't put on (section 9). The MPL says "Mozilla Public License version 1.1" at the top, but software under the MPL can be used under any later version of the MPL - section 6.2. For the GPL, exactly the same thing applies unless the boilerplate says different - i.e., unlike the MPL, the author has the option of restricting it if they choose. But they must explicitly choose to do so. If they do not, then "you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation".
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 20:46 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] Section 9 says nothing about boilerplate. Section 9 applies to code that has a bit like this from kernel/cpu.c in it:
/* CPU control.
I would say that listing the entire text of GPL version 2, leaving off the "or later" notice, *and* the paragraph by Linus at the top of COPYING, makes it very clear that it is version 2.
If you are applying this argument to the early versions of Linux, which were less clear on licensing, then Linus could apply any version GPL he desired, and he picked GPL 2.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 21:18 UTC (Mon) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] Listing the entire text is a requirement of the license. It makes no statement about versions. The paragraph by Linus at the top of COPYING (at least, the version I linked to) also says absolutely nothing about versions.
Yes, the "or later" notice is left off, but so is all the rest of the boilerplate. How much clearer can section 9 be? The Program (the file) does not specify a version number of this License (because it doesn't specify anything) and so consequentially you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
The boilerplate you quote also falls into the same category. But we have already agreed that if code has no boilerplate at all, then it is under the terms of GPL version 2 - as given in COPYING. And GPL version 2 clearly states that if no version number is given in boilerplate, you can use any version of the GPL ever published by the FSF.
To put it another way, the default terms in the case of no boilerplate are "any version ever published" (i.e. 1, 2 or 3). The standard default boilerplate is "this version or any later version" (i.e 2 or 3) and it can be modified to "this version only (i.e. 2). There are three different possibilities depending on the boilerplate status, and files with no boilerplate are in the first of those three buckets.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 12, 2007 22:22 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] I finally did look at the link you provided.
I had assumed it was a link to the latest kernel. But your link is COPYING for the kernel repositories. Each release of Linux contains its own COPYING file. Please look at COPYING in the top level of 2.6.20, for example. Then refer to my previous comment that by your argument, Linus was free to relicense to explicit version 2. I myself happen to agree with Linus that it was always version 2.
I *still* disagree with your interpretation of section 9. If I put the complete text of GPL Version 2 as the license on my program, and do not explicitly give you permission to relicense under any later version, then I *did* specify a version: version 2. I do not see how you can read "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2" as anything other than specifying a version, and section 9 that you are so fond of says nothing about *where* the version must be specified. I believe section 9 applies only when the GPL is included by reference.
If you want *me* to agree with you, please explain and convince me why listing the version 2 GPL text does not specify version 2 GPL.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 14, 2007 21:42 UTC (Wed) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] I've had a look at the COPYING in the latest kernel (2.6.20). Linus's statement there is interesting because I don't think it's immediately obvious that he has the legal authority to make that statement about any contribution other than his own - certainly not for contributions made before he added the statement.
If I contribute some code to the pre-Linus-announcement Linux kernel, and don't put a header on it, section 9 says that recipients can choose any version of the GPL ever published by the FSF. (You may still dispute that; but see below for further comments.) Linus can not take away that right I have given, because it's imposing further restrictions on the rights I am granting - something section 6 of the GPL forbids.
If I contribute unboilerplated code to the Linux kernel post-Linus-announcement, there is a conflict. The license supposedly applying to the kernel says recipients can use any version; Linus says it's only version 2. Which wins? Well, Linus doesn't own the copyright on my contributions, so I'd say the text of the GPL wins. But I agree it's a different and more complex situation.
Your interpretation of section 9 is wrong because it says "If _the Program_ specifies...". In other words, it *does* say where the version must be specified - it must be specified on the Program. The copy of the included license is not the Program.
If the mere inclusion of the licensing text of one particular GPL version were sufficient to fix the licensing of the accompanying software at that version, then that part of section 9 would not need to exist. Why would you ever have a clause beginning "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License", if it were impossible to not specify a version number, because the inclusion of the license text always meant that you had specified one?
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 6, 2007 20:14 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] This is becoming a FAQ...
Obviously, the files that make up the Linux kernel of have all sorts of different copyright holders and licenses (many even have multiple licenses). There is one thing that holds them all together: each is somehow compatible with the GPLv2.
So, what license applies to the entire kernel as a whole? COPYING in the root directory, of course. Not coincidentally, this also happens to be the intersection of each license exception found in kernel. The "or later" clause is just one example.
And has /COPYING ever included the "or later" clause? Never. That's why I said "kernel release" instead of "kernel file": I'm referring to the kernel as a whole.
It's perfectly possible to include code with an optional exception into a project that doesn't include the exception. In fact, the GPLv3 makes this explicit.
As you say, if for some oddball reason you make the exception mandatory ("you MUST distribute this file under the most recent version of the GPL"), then that would be most problematic. Thankfully, that's not the case. Since all exceptions in the kernel are optional ("either version 2, or (at your option) any later version") then there is no problem when the entire kernel is distributed without them.
Does that make sense?
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 7, 2007 22:54 UTC (Wed) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] If every file which has a GPL header has the "or later" language, then that entire codebase can be used under GPLv3 terms as well as GPLv2. (Any code under other licences which is compatible with GPLv2 will be compatible with GPLv3.)
COPYING defines the distribution terms of the aggregate body, yes. It also serves as the copy of the GPL that the GPL headers say must be present. However, the question is not "what are the terms attached to Linus's release of kernel x.y.z", but "can I change those terms to GPLv3?". And the answer to that question lies solely in the GPL headers on each file.
If a file has no header at all, I'm not sure what the legal position is. I would suggest that it's under the terms of the code surrounding it. But I don't know if a court has ever ruled on this.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 8, 2007 6:33 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] It seems clear to me but of course IANAL...
If a file was contributed without any license information, I can see only one way to interpret this... We can't assume it was intended to be public domain since basically everything is under copyright unless those rights are expressly waived (in the US since 1970 anyway). The court can only guess that the contributing author(s) intended to use the project's umbrella license. But, you're right, this hasn't been ruled on yet.
"Any code under other licences which is compatible with GPLv2 will be compatible with GPLv3."
That's not true is it? I could write a license that's compatible with the GPLv2 and also requires Tivoization ("you must keep your signing key private"). That hypothetical license would be compatible with the GPLv2 and yet incompatible with the last draft of the GPLv3.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 8, 2007 9:51 UTC (Thu) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link] Pedant :-) Yes, you can imagine a licence for which that is not true. But all the licences used in the Linux kernel in this universe (BSD variants and such) fit that profile.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:09 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] I don't know, Don. I would hardly call Bruce Perens's voice "sane and thoughtful." I think shrill and vitriolic would describe many of his LWN posts from the past two months. I hope he cringes at his choice of language when he re-reads some of them now.
Personally, I was solidly in the anti-Novell-deal crowd until Bruce jumped in the middle and started trying to whip everybody into a frenzy. At that point I decided that I couldn't agree with anybody in the room and ignored anything Novell for the next few weeks.
I'm glad Bruce failed, I just wish he hadn't have gone so far over the top in doing so. He turned what could have been very pro-Linux news stories ("Microsoft claims it owns you, here are alternatives") into a solid black eye ("hey look, the Linux guys are slinging mud at each other over yet another petty issue").
If Bruce would just tone it down a bit, he might win me back over (same goes for ESR). But I wish he would quit trying to wrestle control of a project he has no interest in coding for and stop using outrageous hyperbole and personal attacks, calling Nat and Miguel amoral, in his public discourse. It just makes everybody look bad.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 3:17 UTC (Fri) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] What exactly is meant by Bruce's "failure"?
It seems to me that we often lose sight of one of the fundamental differences between the community and corporations. Is transparency not worth the price of potential embarrassment?
I think it goes beyond transparency to freedom -- just a little more freedom to express oneself publicly than, say, in a corporate context. Failing to appreciate this freedom can easily lead to, among other things, rash choices of words such as a few that Bruce made. Who among us has not done this?
Many forget that long ago RMS and the FSF sought to focus more and more on helping education about free software* to catch up with its production and use. Bruce has helped in many ways in this area, an area that many open source folks seem to be hostile toward.
(*) Sadly even just the four freedoms seem to be too much to accept for many in the FOSS community.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 7:06 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Failure to influence the deal in any way. I mostly agree with what you say. If you (or Bruce) wants the freedom to shoot your mouth off, that's fine by me. However, if you do, don't expect businessmen or journalists to take you seriously. And please don't try to present yourself as the voice of an industry; that role absolutely requires responsibility and decorum. Crying wolf too much can make the entire industry look bad.
So, if you want to be in a professional setting, I think it's a good idea to behave in a professional manner.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 8:34 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Do Novell and MS execs read LWN? Should I be wearing a tie right now?
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:22 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] If they did demand that, I'd proudly only read LWM in a T-shirt
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 18:18 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] That depends, beoba. Are you producing press releases and sound bytes intended to be picked up in trade mags? Do you claim to be speaking for the entire community?
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 29, 2007 17:07 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Do you expect to turn up in a court action describing a 'file of people to be killed'?
(Mind you that was definitely not Bruce's fault, and there's no way he could have anticipated anything that crazed... ;) )
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 29, 2007 20:37 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Hey, yeah! I'd forgotten about that. This is Bruce's comment:
http://lwn.net/Articles/107571/
I thought it was a great post. Merkey just failed th grasp the difference between "email killfile" and "file of people to kill".
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 29, 2007 22:25 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I personally would say it's entirely beyond the limits of credibility to suppose that a man with his background didn't know what a killfile is. I'd bet he has one with entries going back to 1990 or so, at least. I see it as a cynical ploy based on the belief that a *judge* wouldn't be likely to understand the reference.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 16:17 UTC (Fri) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] > Raymond may have become a one-trick pony who has drifted away from> current relevance,
Depends on your definition of "relevance". The Art of Unix Programming
> but Bruce has certainly taken a different path -- one which has brought
What's the last remotely relevant thing Bruce did beyond "give
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 25, 2007 23:47 UTC (Thu) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] All Bruce had was busybox? Come on...
Bruce is a former Debian Project Leader. He is the primary author of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (on which the Open Source definition is based) and the Social Contract. He also did lots of other things for Debian. He is the founder of OSI, SPI and LSB.
He also does less visible but not less important things. I've seen him talking about open source and software patents at one of the FFII conferences in the European Parliament for example. I haven't really seen a lot of other key figures in our community do things like that.
I doubt you did as much for our community as Bruce did.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:14 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """Bruce is a former Debian Project Leader. He is the primary author of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (on which the Open Source definition is based) and the Social Contract. He also did lots of other things for Debian. """
If only the death penalty were allowed in this case! Sigh...
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:18 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] That and things like the Holloween documents and attempting to make sure that free software developers were aware of the threat that patents are to them.
But he does have his dipshit moments, like everybody else. Getting upitty with busybox when he was uninvolved for years, and Novell overraction are two big ones.
I know I'd like to take back some things I've said online.
Anybody who is passionate about a subject and is very outspoken is going to get their judgement clouded time to time and be straight wrong other times.
As far as ESR goes... people like to degrade him for his non-politically correct view points (of some I share). He is not, never was that relevent, and he isn't a profitant developer and he was only kinda-sorta right with the Cathedral vs Bazzar. However a couple things he has worked on I like a lot.
For instance he hit the nail on the head with the design of GpsD, for instance. It's simple, correct, flexible, easy to deal with, easy to write software that is comaptable with it, and easy to troubleshoot. Networkable also. Classic Unix design. What it does is the sort of things that most people tend to realy realy over engineer and make application-specific manner. Lots of developers trying to do things could learn from that. Simple is better.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 3:44 UTC (Fri) by Thalience (subscriber, #4217) [Link] I would also point to "The Art of Unix Programming" as a positive, semi-recent contribution from Mr. Raymond. Its the first Unix book I would give any programmer who only had experience in the Windows or corporate Java universe.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 1, 2007 13:12 UTC (Thu) by sean.hunter (guest, #7920) [Link] Read "The Unix Programming Environment" by Kernighan and Pike to understand what a really good programming book can be.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:25 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Too bad this comment thread just seems to be about name-calling.My guess is that if the FSF produces a license that is acceptable to enough of the big players (e.g. Sun, for Java and Solaris; developers of other interesting projects), we'll probably wind up seeing an evolutionary approach that will work things out for those who still have problems, and we'll see "GPL v2 or any later version" code more and more, possibly motivated by non-ideological folks who just want to share code between Linux and Solaris kernels. As GPLv3 code becomes more common and the world doesn't end, the battle will cool off. And maybe we'll wind up seeing the Linux kernel have GPLv3 parts with a special exception striking the anti-DRM language. Many of the corporate contributors might like that a whole lot, since they generally prefer the draft GPLv3 patent language to the GPLv2 patent language. Or maybe we won't and the Linux kernel will stay GPLv2. It's not really all that big a deal.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:32 UTC (Fri) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Or maybe we won't and the Linux kernel will stay GPLv2. It's not really all that big a deal.As has been stated lots of times before, Linus doesn't have the power to change the kernel license. He could of course change the license on the parts of the code that he wrote, like everybody else who contributed to the kernel. But for the whole kernel to change licenses, every contributor would have to agree. And that's just unlikely to happen.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 18:05 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """But for the whole kernel to change licenses, every contributor would have to agree. And that's just unlikely to happen."""
Some of the contributors are dead. Their benefactors control the license... if they had a proper will. If they didn't... then what?
It's not so much a matter of unlikely. It's a matter of how long it would take to sort out all the legal mess.
And a license change would permanently weaken Linux's legal position.
With SCO, badly as their case has gone, it has taken *years*, with no evidence(!), and the thing hasn't even made it to trial yet.
Do you really want to open the door to another "SCO Case", or even several?
Except that in these future "Linux license change" cases, the opposition might really *have* a case.
Changing the Linux Kernel license would almost certainly precipitate such an ugly situation. I, for one, do not want to see it.
Whether GPLv2 or GPLv3 is superior, and I will refrain from giving my opinion here... a license change for the Linux kernel is a really bad idea.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:36 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I've said it before, but I'll say it again because I think it's a cool idea.
If a project is GPLv2, but would like to upgade to GPLv3 then one of the big things they could would be to either dual license it GPLv2 and GPLv3 or add a exception to the GPLv3 for backward compatability.
This would be to show people that if your moving to GPLv3 that your not doing it to force anybody and it wouldn't require other projects to move to GPLv3 in order to remain compatable. This should avoid a lot of fights.
Also if the GPLv3 turns out to be a flop in practice then this enables you to go back to GPLv2 if you have to without headaches.
Then if/when the GPLv3 becomes widely adopted and there is no longer any sort of compatability problems with other people's software and such then you can move to pure GPLv3 and then get all the benifits of the updates to the license.
I think that this would allow a nice transition from one to another. It may take a few years to get it all the way done, but I think that will be worth it to avoid project forking and infighting.
Much in the same way that my computer is 64bit, but retains 32bit compatability. There is a few issues that cause me to need to have some 32bit applications but that is getting less and less important everyday and eventually it will just stop mattering.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 11:20 UTC (Fri) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] >If a project is GPLv2, but would like to upgade to GPLv3 then one of the big things they could would be to either dual license it GPLv2 and GPLv3 or add a exception to the GPLv3 for backward compatability.It is much easier, just release your code as "GPLv2 or later" so everyone can choose to use GPLv2 or GPLv3 and you don't need special execptions etc.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 12:47 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well the point is to move gradually to the GPLv3 license.
This way you can make sure that everybody involved in the project would be onboard for it because you know would know that anybody contributing code will understand that it will probably be under the GPLv3 license eventually.
This will give time for people to mull it over and give time for the real-world effect of the GPLv3 to sink in instead of jumping full bore into it and pressuring people to make a desicion right away.
Plus you would have people who contribute code to your project do it under the same dual license so that the patent language goes into effect.
Another variation of the idea would be to release the project tarballs and binaries under the GPLv3, but have a linking exception with GPLv2 code as well as make it project policy that if a GPLv2 licensed project would like to use source code then that would be fine.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 14:09 UTC (Fri) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] >This way you can make sure that everybody involved in the project would be onboard for it because you know would know that anybody contributing code will understand that it will probably be under the GPLv3 license eventually. [..] Plus you would have people who contribute code to your project do it under the same dual licenseI don't see the difference if you say to a contributor: "You have to dual-license your code under GPLv2 and GPLv3", "You have to license you code under GPLv3 plus my special backward clause" or "You have to license you code under GPLv2 or later". You always have to ask contributors for a special license and you always achieve the same but using "GPLv2 or later" is imho the easiest and most common way.
GPL 3: What is the fuss all about? Posted Jan 26, 2007 15:46 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] don't see the difference if you say to a contributor: "You have to dual-license your code under GPLv2 and GPLv3", "You have to license you code under GPLv3 plus my special backward clause" or "You have to license you code under GPLv2 or later". There are certainly differences... "GPLv2 or v3" is not the same as "GPLv2 or later" (this would include GPLv4!), "GPLv3 + backward clause" is not the same as "GPLv2" either. Etc. And please don't lose sight of the fact that the anti-DRM provisions in GPLv2 are the problem here. I agree with Linus that if I get Linux on, say, a wireless router or any other type of appliance, I should not be automatically able to run any other junk on that machine. It is quite reasonable for the manufacturer of certain devices to restrict what they can do (it might be even mandated by law), be it by physical limits or software-enforced ones. And in the current world, where it is already much cheaper (and better) to control a washing machine or elevator by software and not mechanically, this later case will be ever more prevalent. I still can take the source code to Linux I get with such a device and run it elsewhere. Also, please do remember that GPLed software (and open source in general) is a tiny minority in all software that is out there, even more so in the areas where GPLv3 anti-DRM provisions could make some difference. Changing the license of a piece of software to prohibit some uses will make no difference whatsoever, except for making certain people feel self-important.
GPL 3: What is the fuss all about? Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:04 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well.. the 'Anti-DRM' clause isn't designed to prevent the use of DRM or discourage it.
Just like the clause stating that you have to distribute source code if your redistribute GPL'd software is not designed to try to make other people (say microsoft) open source their programs.
It's designed to protect the '4 freedoms'. It is essentially a way to attempt to enforce the idea that you can't make GPL software non-Free (by FSF/GNU's definition). Either refusal to release code or using encryption to enforce specific software versions the effect on end users is the same.
In all actuality if somebody (Sun has a project to do just this) releases open source software that is able to succcessfully impliment DRM, even if you try to modify the code, then you could license that under the GPLv3.
Also if you would like to use GPLv3 software to play back DRM content or control hardware that impliments DRM, then that is fine also.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 10, 2007 18:40 UTC (Sat) by RareCactus (guest, #41198) [Link] This whole article is a blatant troll.
The Linux kernel has always been under the GPLv2-- check COPYING at the root of the tree. After another two years, there will have been another two years' worth of contributions to the Linux kernel by various people, explicitly tagged as "GPLv2 only," because that's what Linus is now requiring.
Whatever your opinions are about the GPLv3 or any other license, it's irrelevant. The Linux kernel is under the GPLv2.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 16:54 UTC (Fri) by dhess (guest, #7827) [Link] It's off-topic, since the article was written about the GPL v3 and not Bruce Perens' merits, but I want to second what jeroen said about Bruce's contributions to free software. Bruce has done a lot for the free software community, much of it without any financial reward.I've worked with Bruce in the past, and I think he's a very reasonable guy. When it comes to GNU/Linux and free software issues, he's opinionated but not uncompromising. He's spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff and about how to make it palatable to people who don't understand free software. He also keeps his opinions on unrelated issues to himself, unlike certain other members of "our tribe." Bruce has earned the right to be contacted for stories like this one. I'm glad to have him speaking up on free software issues, and I hope he continues to do so. If you disagree with him, that's fine, but it's no reason to attack him or to question his impact on the free software movement.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 6:34 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Doesn't Bruce work with HP or something now? Working inside a company to make it take the necessary steps to embrace Linux. That's also a way of helping the rest of the community in the long run, and probably one that many more needs to do.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 7:33 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] He was with HP for several years, in a fairly high-level position, and got canned (along with big chunks of the company) after the Compaq merger.He has a detailed resume/biography online.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 8:46 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Picture this scenario: A repository containing the current kernel snapshot in HTML-ized annotated form allows kernel contributors to claim their respective fragments of code and state that they release this code under the GPLv3.
Another scenario: It is declared that all future contributions to the kernel will be dual-licensed under both v2 and v3.
How long do you think it would take for, say, 90% of the kernel code to be under the GPLv3 in either of these scenarios?
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 14:10 UTC (Fri) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] 90% doesn't cut it. You need 100%. You won't get 100%. End of story.
Consider that several developers don't want GPLv3. (Linus among them...) So they claim their pieces of code but do not relicense them. What do you do -- spend a year rewriting half the kernel AND lose a few important contributors?
NFW.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 14:59 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Nope. Programmers seem to link that law is executed on computer processors, but it's not.
You need about 95% of copyright ownership, and you have to remove any of the 5% if any owner requests their code is removed.
This is how Mozilla moved from the MPL to a triple MPL/GPL/LGPL licence.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 15:53 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Still doesn't cut it. 10 first-line kernel hackers have publicly disagreed with GPLv3, there are probably much more who think likewise in the rank and file. Sure, if you could get 95% GPLv3'd, you'd be in the clear; but I guess those 10 are responsible for something like a 30% of the kernel (mostly core stuff, that can't just be configured out). Plus if they walk away, then Linux is no more (it isn't the current source code, but its development dynamics what makes it successful).
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 16:13 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Still doesn't cut it My explanation of why relicensing is possible doesn't cut is as an explanation for why it will happen? Of course, but that's because you changed the topic. C'mon. So, onto the topic you raised: will the developers be willing? There are three factors that point to "maybe". One is that Linus loves digging his heels in and TALKING _like_ *this* and saying never never never, but he also doesn't mind changing his mind after all that. That's his management style, he even documented it somewhere. The second is that in the Linux developers survey that came out against GPLv3, one person later said they hadn't read GPLv3 - how many others hadn't read it? And thirdly, we can't predict the future. No one guessed that Novell would jump into bed with MS. We don't know what other nasty tricks are in store which might make it clearer why a really solid licence is necessary.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:19 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] > Still doesn't cut it Sorry, keyboard faster than brain there. So, onto the topic you raised: will the developers be willing? AFAICS, Linus' position is essentially that getting Linux on some appliance doesn't automatically mean I'm entitled to run something else on it. I also think it is quite reasonable to lock in (via signed code) what configuration the code can do to some appliances. When devices where controlled mechanically, they were designed with built-in stops and limits. Today, when the control is much more detailed, it is more and more done in software. Plus software is much easier to change than, say, sawing off a pesky stop somewhere., and changes in software aren't as easy to see in their effects (remember any bug you've chased for days lately?). Plus a software change is easy to revert ("Oops, with my modification it ended up screwing up, let's replace it by the original and go complain to the vendor..."). So yes, it does (sometimes) make a lot of sense restricting what software the buyer can run on the machine. Plus the flexibility that easily field-replaceable software gives is vital in some uses, so "just place it in ROM" doesn't cut it either. So yes, I do think the DRM (and some other) restrictions in the draft GPLv3 (which I did read, IANAL in any case) are trying to solve a problem (current DRM frenzy) by (a) attacking the wrong problem, (b) with the wrong (non)weapons
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:47 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] There are definitely grey areas, but people seem to see these and then think that therefor no line should be drawn, but that leads to the situation where there's no reason for a manufacturer not to tivoise all the software on the device. They get full control, and the customers get no freedom to help themselves or cooperate with each other as a community. Many companies see that as a win, but for computer users, in terms of having those freedoms, it's a complete loss.
So where to draw the line? GPLv3 draws the line at network installs. Whatever parts of the software can be upgraded by the manufacturer over the network have to also be modifiable by the owner.
If a regulation requires that a certain software-controlled feature be restricted, it can go in ROM. That will usually be a tiny amount of code, maybe it will just be two numbers.
If the manufacturer wants to restrict more than is necessary, then that's just a violation of the spirit of the GPL and it's the GPL's job to stop that.
So GPLv3 encourages manufacturers to put as little as possible in non-user-modifiable memory by mandating that that part of the software also be non-manufacturer-modifiable.
In all the noise that this has generated, I don't think anyone's made a list of how many companies this will affect? A friend in one of the World's largest medical device manufacturing companies confirmed to me that they don't use tivoisation in any of there devices - and yet the example of medical devices has often been used to say that GPLv3 goes too far.
The other ways to tackle the current DRM frenzy are to either (a) use our market pressure, but that's just choosing to fail since we have a track record of never using our market pressure effectively, or (b) shake off the power that the content industry has over us by moving to free content - this means discarding all culture made in your county and my country in the last century, and It won't happen.
Our licences can't do everything, and not everything will be happily black and white, but we've got to do what we can, and if you've a better way to draw the line through this grey area, gplv3.fsf.org is asking for your input.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 19:16 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """gplv3.fsf.org is asking for your input."""
While I recognize the importance of keeping up appearances, it would be nicer if anyone there were actually listening.
GPLv3 is Richard's baby and no one else's. Never forget that.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 30, 2007 7:37 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] ""GPLv3 is Richard's baby and no one else's. Never forget that.""
Oh, bullshit.
I mean seriously, how can you say stuff like that? The GPLv3 is probably the most debated, most reviewed, most discussed software license in history. (while still in draft, were changes can actually happen) There are thousands of people, hundreds of orginizations, intellectual property owners from all around word have given input and had questions answered (some in more general ways then others). Everything rom small Free software groups to multi-billion dollar corporations.
If you don't like it, thats fine. But at least have a realistic view on it and the amount of people that think it's pretty good stuff.
Samba, for example, have already stated that they are moving to it. Sun Microsystems seem to like it pretty well also.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 19:22 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Despite what you say, coriordan, I think the market is a very clear reason for the manufacturer not to Tivoise. Think of what Linksys's sales would have been if they had Tivo'd the WRT54G? Significantly lower, that's for sure. Same goes for Archos products. That's two examples and I'm sure I could find more. Your claim that "we've never used our market pressure effectively" is, I think, demonstrably false.
Another reason: the cost. The extra hardware and development time will add to the price of the unit. Most companies won't care what software you run on their box, so they won't bother to lock it down.
Finally, what do you mean by "DRM Frenzy"? I only see DRM on music and movie media. That's hardly a frenzy. And since shiny round discs are pretty much obsolete (you watch), that just leaves Microsoft's Vista-compatible video cards. I think you can see why I'm not terribly worried. And, no, I don't think DRM will catch on in the future either.
It's like making huge sacrifices to save customers from Divx (the Circuit City DRM disaster). Why bother? The customers will save themselves and you can expend your effort on more important things. No need to knock yourself out.
I just looked at gplv3.fsf.org and nothing has changed since September 26th?? That might explain why, in the last 4 months, GPLv3 discussion on LWN doesn't appear to have changed at all. It's the same old arguments, and the same old outcomes (agree to disagree).
So, are we going to see some changes at any point? Or discussion on DRM? Since your committee meetings are private (oh, the irony), I have no idea what the FSF has done in the last 4 months. Heck, it doesn't look like anything at all has changed since 26 August.
I must say, I find the GPLv3, and its decidedly non-free development process, very disappointing.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 26, 2007 23:49 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """I must say, I find the GPLv3, and its decidedly non-free development process, very disappointing. """
I'll second that. Though I can't claim to be disappointed, as I expected it to go this way.
As I've said previously, GPLv3 is Richard's baby and *no one* else's.
It will be what Richard want's it to be, and other's opinions do not factor in. He is doing what he can to maintain the appearance of an open process because he must. But it is all a facade.
-Steve
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:04 UTC (Sat) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link] The lawyers of Sun and Nokia, who, unlike you, are actually involved with GPLv3, disagree.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:14 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] My suggested modifications have been entirely ignored. No response whatsoever. Although I did get an automated response on one occasion emphasizing how important each and every comment and suggestion is to the FSF. No actual response to that one, either. On the rest it was just silence.
I would be interested in seeing the responses you have gotten back from the FSF regarding modifications to the GPLv3.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:39 UTC (Sat) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link] Nowhere they had promised you'd get a personal response; I reckon with the amount ofsuggestions they get answering each one individually would be unpractical. I agree that some kind of feedback on suggestions (such as "read by Eben Moglen on this date") would be good. However the many refinements between draft1 and draft2 indicate that they do listen to what people say, unless you asked them to drop anti-Tivo language or other major points.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:49 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """unless you asked them to drop anti-Tivo language or other major points """
It appears that we mostly agree. There have been no significant changes to GPLv3 from draft 1 to the present. There are unlikely to be any between now and its official inception. And the FSF is not expected to give any reasons.
For a moment, there, I thought we might *disagree* on these things. ;-)
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 3:15 UTC (Sat) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] When you open *anything* up to public comment like this, it goes without saying that comments which amount to 'your goals are completely wrong, you should scratch the entire idea' aren't likely to be implemented. So what? Do you really expect them to read your peanut-gallery screechings and suddenly withdraw the idea and announce that v2, riddled as it is with known exploits, is perfect forever and all time? Please, get real.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 18:33 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] I don't remember the kernel guys saying that.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 23:31 UTC (Sat) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Well that's exactly what some of them have said, boiled down to the essentials. They like the loopholes that v3 is being designed to close. The only way to make someone taking that position happy with v3 would be to abandon the fundamental reason for the existence of the GPL, all versions of it.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 0:07 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] They like the loopholes that v3 is being designed to close. They haven't say such a thing, they said that GPL should not try to get into areas that aren't properly a code license's. Also, GPLv2 gives certain specific rights, what is wrong with with wanting to give just that ones? Sure, GPLv2 would gain a lot by cleaning up the language, and making it (more) compatible with non-US laws. Besides, the 4 freedoms (and GPLv2) haven't ever talked about "If you get a device running free code, you are entitled to run anything else you want on it". I can certainly see uses for open source that require (for complying with regulations, for safety, etc) running only certified programs. Sure, the most talked about case is restricting users access to digital content, but nothing GPLvX could do will make any difference for or against that, but it will hurt other uses badly.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 0:57 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] They haven't say such a thing, they said that GPL should not try to get into areas that aren't properly a code license's. Also, GPLv2 gives certain specific rights, what is wrong with with wanting to give just that ones? Sure, GPLv2 would gain a lot by cleaning up the language, and making it (more) compatible with non-US laws. The GPL has always applied to distributors, so why should it not be adjusted to whatever new distribution methods such as Tivos that have developed in a decade and a half (incredibly long in this biz) since v2? To limit rights as in v2, are you not aware of the exceptions language in v3 that allows certain restrictions to be imposed? Besides, the 4 freedoms (and GPLv2) haven't ever talked about "If you get a device running free code, you are entitled to run anything else you want on it". I can certainly see uses for open source that require (for complying with regulations, for safety, etc) running only certified programs. Sure, the most talked about case is restricting users access to digital content, but nothing GPLvX could do will make any difference for or against that, but it will hurt other uses badly. Just a trivial google search on the terms "gplv3", "medical", "devices" gives as the top hit: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/... which is a recent summary of thought which has existed for some time now and which throws your concern here into doubt. The bottom line is that the GPL has always aimed to uphold the four freedoms, and with this protection now diminished from loopholes, v3 is needed to fix them.
Certifiable Posted Jan 29, 2007 23:07 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] Many things (glassware, candles, ladders, power tools) that might maim or kill someone if carelessly handled, yet I am allowed to own and even modify them if I comply with regulations myself. So I'm afraid I can't share your enthusiasm for a world where I am denied as many choices as technologically possible in the name of safety. I would rather assume responsibility for my own actions and live in a free society.
Also you are mistaken about the "four freedoms" enumerated by the FSF. Number one is "the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs." To do that I must be able to run modified software on the devices I actually own unless we suppose I have unlimited resources. Releasing software under a license that ensures this freedom more strictly than GPLv2 might not change the world but it seems worth trying -- after all the same thing was said about GPLv2 once.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 6:07 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] "[The kernel guys] like the loopholes that v3 is being designed to close."
Arker, that's an absurd thing to say. Most of them are very happy with v3, they just think it goes a little too far when it comes to DRM. Where did you get the idea that they want it full of loopholes?
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 29, 2007 22:20 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I did say *some* - I'm quite aware that there is considerable difference of opinion.
But the ones who have been making the anti-gpl noises are indeed propounding a position that says the loopholes are good, they don't need to be addressed. They say they don't *want* to prevent companies following Tivos lead and effectively making the software non-free. As long as that's their position, they won't be interested in version three, they're going to stay with version 2, and they aren't likely to have anything useful to contribute to the v3 discussion, since they don't agree with the purpose of the thing to begin with.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 17:51 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] When you submit a comment, it is passed on to 4 committees of about 130 people. They consider the comment and try to form consensus on what, if anything, should be done. They then pass that on to RMS who makes the final decision. According to members of the committees, which are mostly made up of non-supporters of FSF, RMS is changing the GPL drafts in response to their input. Links to the committee membership lists are here:http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_softw...
And here's the newsforge article where committee members say that RMS is acting on the comments:
The goal is to write a licence, so yes, when you submit a comment, the committees work on the licence instead of contacting you for a dialogue. That seems like the smartest use of the committees' time.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 19:00 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Everything seems open when you're a member of the secret committees? That's hardly surprising.
Besides, that article is from 5 Aug 2006. The kernel position statement was from 15 Sep 2006 (http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/ ). I wonder if you'd find such unanimous adoration for the gplv3 process now.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 15:21 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] It's not like that at all. And FWIW, I'm not on any of the committees and I'm not privy to any private info from or about the committees.
Each committee decides how they want to work.
Committee D is the hackers+community committee, and they like transparency and inclusion. They decided that membership is open to everyone, which includes you. (Someone else on this page already mentioned that they joined that committee and got replies from Eben Moglen about some of their comments.)
Committees A to C are lawyers, corporations, and projects. They decided their discussions should be private. That's a good idea. While I'm disappointed that I won't get to hear what each person says, I know that they wouldn't say anything if their conversations were viewable to the public and the media - or worse, they'd lie for tactical/market reasons or use the forum as a PR tool.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 14:42 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] The kernel is a much larger body of text, and you mostly get some king of response even when you shoot your mouth off. And it is not that this isn't a higly specialized area of work, where the result has to be checked and refined by specialists, and where we have Our Great White Leader, who has claimed that his job is mostly saying "No". Why would something like this not work for creating a community-agreeable license?
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 22:21 UTC (Sat) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
Law is not C code. I can fiddle around with the kernel, determine the value of the output within the time it takes to compile and boot, and nobody will get sued as a result. If I fiddle around with a software license, the output may not be noticed for years and could very well be the cause of severe hardship for lots of people. My opinion regarding some new patch in the kernel might be useful to the developers, if I can present some logical basis for my opinion or some real-world experience to back up that opinion. My opinion regarding whether or not the word "convey" needs to be in GPLv3 is of no importance to anyone, because I don't have a clue about the legal jurisdictions in which it holds significance. The effect of "return 1;" is not something that will change if you compile the kernel in the U.S. one day and Libya the next. Anyone might demonstrate the effects of changing such lines of code. The effects of using "convey" versus "propagate" versus "copy" are not so easily and universally demonstrated. Anyone can suggest an intended or hoped-for effect, but how to achieve that effect in a license is not something one can determine by reading a man page or some source code.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 0:22 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Law is not C code. I can fiddle around with the kernel, determine the value of the output within the time it takes to compile and boot, and nobody will get sued as a result. If I fiddle around with a software license, the output may not be noticed for years and could very well be the cause of severe hardship for lots of people. Exactly the same could somebody who is a lawyer say about writing a kernel. Yes, both are complex, specialized endeavors. Yes, in both cases specialists most have the last word. But in both cases the end result will have to be agreeable to its users, be it software users or developers releasing code. If either group isn't happy, the code or the license will be moot. And I fear GPLv3 will be a complete non-starter, when it could have been a step forward.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 1:23 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] Exactly the same could somebody who is a lawyer say about writing a kernel. Yes, both are complex, specialized endeavors. Yes, in both cases specialists most have the last word. But in both cases the end result will have to be agreeable to its users, be it software users or developers releasing code. If either group isn't happy, the code or the license will be moot. And I fear GPLv3 will be a complete non-starter, when it could have been a step forward. Users and developers have had opportunities over and over again to join the process and make their voices heard, so no one has any excuse to complain about lack of opportunity to participate. Torvalds refused to participate because of his admitted dislike of committees. Should some special allowance have been made for him and the kernel guys? Do you realize how unfair that would look to other projects, several of which did participate in the process? Most GPLed software is licensed v2+, so I see no basis at all for your fear that v3 is a non-starter. You comment as if the kernel guys were somehow representative of GPL users in general, which is silly given how nearly all projects have nothing to do with Tivoization. Even the kernel guys are not as against v3 as you might think, with about 30% of the code currently licensed v2+.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 14:09 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
Lawyers must be a different kind of animal where you live. If you ever get a lawyer who says he or she can quickly and precisely determine the effects of changing a few words in a legal document, run away! You can do such changes with software code and the results will be apparent when anyone, anywhere, properly compiles and tests that code. Judges, lawyers, courts and legislatures do not perform the same function as a compiler. The process used for drafting GPLv3 is unprecedented. I can find no instance of any other software license ever being created by soliciting feedback from the world.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 2:10 UTC (Sat) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] The v3 drafting process includes both a Committee D which anyone can join and a commenting system upon the current draft. The archive for D's mailing list shows that Eben Moglen himself has responded to some of the emails from members of the public who joined the committee.
I may expect a reply to my post in any public forum or mailing list, but I am certainly entitled to nothing. OTOH, no reply does not imply that my comments are ignored.
Unless there an error in the above facts, I cannot see how people feel that the drafting process is in any way not open. What am I missing?
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 18:25 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Committee D is a ghetto The last discussion appears to be 28th March. Looking over the minutes I feel that D must be a committee in the worst sense of the word: a lot of non-authoritative people describing what they're working on and not producing a single thing other than me-too blog posts. The word "TPS Report" comes to mind...James Blackwell's "how GPLv3 fights DRM" or Don Armstrong's "DRM and Authentication" look particularly interesting to me. Alas, I can't find anything either on gplv3.fsf.org or via google. Since nothing has happened since March 2006, if at all, I hope you understand why I feel disinclined to participate in committee D. Here's a crazy suggestion: open up the discussion. Maybe some mailing list archives, a forum, a regularly updated blog? This stuff is trivial; it takes all of 1/2 hour to set up. It sure would help; right now, gplv3.fsf.org looks totally abandoned. And why have secret police committees? I would really like to know what the GPLv3 drafters thought of the Kernel document. Since gplv3.fsf.org doesn't even acknowledge that the kernel guys exist, what can I do? File a Freedom of Information Act subpoena?? Just imagine if the FSF wrote software using this process! The whole gplv3.fsf.org process demonstrates the very definition of "not open." Don't get me wrong; I can't wait until we have an updated GPL so the Microsoft-Novell hole can be plugged. I just wish the current draft were so encumbered with phantom issues. At this rate, it will take 4 more years to release and, when it finally does get shoved out the door, it will be identical to draft 1 of almost a year ago. Not good.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 20:46 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] I realize I worded my previous post little ranty (shouldn't write before morning coffee).
Here's what I was trying to say:
- I have no interest in becoming part of a committee that has no charter and no direction. Committees need definite, achievable goals to pursue.
- gplv3.fsf.org appears to be abandoned. The last publicly-visible updates were from Q3 of last year.
- There has been no action whatsoever on the gplv3 in the last six months. The 27 July draft is still the most recent.
- There's basically no readable discussion to be found on gplv3.fsf.org (the "Comments" page has become impenetrable).
- There has been tons of very good, very readable discussion on LWN, Slashdot, and LKML. Why is this? Why can't it happen on gplv3.fsf.org?
- Why hasn't the FSF dignified the LKML position statement with a clear response? They seem to reject all the kernel developers as fringe outliers.
- There's no way for me to learn more about why the FSF is making these decisions because everything is done behind closed doors in proprietary committees. What happened to freedom?
I just hope that the GPLv3 manages to survive this process.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 21:33 UTC (Sat) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] bronson,
Eben Moglen immediately responded to the kernel guys in the media and in his blog:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog
Indeed, the kernel guys were always invited to participate from the very beginning. I recall that Torvalds was upset that he did not get an advance copy of an early draft. He wanted special treatment that no one else was getting. I also recall that he expressed no desire to participate in a committee. Are you not aware of all of this?
If you bother looking up the Committee D mailing list archives, you will find plenty of discussion on issues such as whatever concerns you have.
In general, nothing you have written has in any way been against their schedule, which is listed at the end of a document that it seems you ought to understand better:
From http://gplv3.fsf.org/process-definition:
1. 16-17 January 2006: Initial Conference; release of first public draft
I do not know for sure, but I suppose the MS-Novell deal has been an important distraction of Eben Moglen from other concerns. However, there are people with impressive expertise on Committee D. For example, there is Seth Schoen of eff.org who has written thoughtfully on Treacherous Computing.
Please try to do some more reading before making unfounded claims.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 7:41 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] That process definition shows how far behind schedule the GPLv3 is. It's now basically February 2007 and the third discussion draft is 4 months late. The "latest possible release date" is less than 8 weeks away. Even if they got draft 3 out today, that's hardly enough time to have any meaningful discussion.
Eben Moglen's blog entry sounds nice. "I invite them to represent themselves in any way they choose, and pledge to work with them to create, even at this late date, a form of participation in the deliberations about GPLv3 that would reflect their preferred means of work, and be appropriate to their position in the community of developers."
Except that never happened. Maybe Eben didn't realize that they _were_ participating using their preferred means of work? Their position statement was quite clear. Why didn't he just reply to it in his blog entry? In fact, I can't find a clear, authoritative reply anywhere. Just the clarification page which is so dismissive that it's not clear the author even read the kernel position statement.
Thankfully a number of people have posted clarifications here on LWN (thanks especially to coriordan), so I feel that the patent situation is actually in pretty good shape. I look forward to reading draft 3.
You suggested I google for the mailing list, "which you will find shows a lot more activity for Committee D than you suggested." So how am I supposed to know that Committee D mailing list archives even exist? I can't read minds. Lessee... 4 messages in November and none since then? Doesn't that demonstrates exactly the sort of inaction that I was talking about?
I agree that some discussion must be private. But almost all of it? You've got to be kidding me. That's an absurd claim to make. Sure, have one private mailing list/committee, but why not try to have at least *some* important discussion in the open?
I feel that I'm now fairly well informed (thanks for the links), and the whole process still looks decidedly non-free. Sorry. The FSF has a lot to learn about how to have an open discussion and how to set up an usable web site!
Please please please release a draft 3 in time for the kernel guys to have a few weeks to comment on it? After Eben's hard work on the Novell disaster, and the patent clarifications, I think we'll find that the two sides are much closer to agreement. But we'll never know if there's no draft 3, or no time to comment on it.
b3timmons, thanks for taking the time to respond.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 28, 2007 19:11 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] That process definition shows how far behind schedule the GPLv3 is. It's now basically February 2007 and the third discussion draft is 4 months late. The "latest possible release date" is less than 8 weeks away. Even if they got draft 3 out today, that's hardly enough time to have any meaningful discussion. Please read carefully: the third draft was only listed as possible, not certain. Given how long ago the process was announced and how easy it was for me to find ways to participate, I just do not buy any excuses of not being able to have meaningful discussion about it. Except that never happened. Maybe Eben didn't realize that they _were_ participating using their preferred means of work? Their position statement was quite clear. Why didn't he just reply to it in his blog entry? In fact, I can't find a clear, authoritative reply anywhere. Just the clarification page which is so dismissive that it's not clear the author even read the kernel position statement. You are leaving out this part from Moglen: I appreciate the positions taken publicly by the kernel developers. To be clear, the process of deliberation in which FSF and everyone else has been engaged since January is not only a process of taking positions. It also involves listening to the positions others have taken: it's the effect of listening as well as talking that gives deliberative democracy its effectiveness as well as its legitimacy. I think you misunderstand what it means to participate. Participating means agreeing to minimum standards expected of everyone. In this case it meant a process of not only speaking but listening -- even to others who may not entirely agree with them. Yes, they could have participated using their preferred means of work, as long as that involves listening at some level. Moglen tried to give them special treatment here, but even this was not good enough. You must admit that they were in effect asking to be treated with more favor than other participants. Again, a warning sign was Torvalds expecting to see an early draft before other participants. How can issuing the position statement publicly at a relatively late date to put Moglen on the spot not be seen as a political move? A clearly unproductive thing is exchanges of position statements and critiques which are simply at too large of a granularity to make any sense here. Even the deliberation on lkml does not function in any way like this. Moreover, I think all of us should appreciate that deliberative processes have many challenges, such as maintaining a high S/N ratio, and that there must be inevitable tradeoffs, such as representation. So I am glad Moglen did not respond too much in his blog, since I think that would have threatened the process itself in any number of ways. Think about it. You suggested I google for the mailing list, "which you will find shows a lot more activity for Committee D than you suggested." So how am I supposed to know that Committee D mailing list archives even exist? I can't read minds. Lessee... 4 messages in November and none since then? Doesn't that demonstrates exactly the sort of inaction that I was talking about? The D resources page notes the mailing list, hence the guess that there must be archives. The only demonstration is just a matter of degree of activity. I think you wrote earlier that the last activity was March, but now it is November. However, I fail to see your point about activity. Different activity levels occur in many different projects for many different reasons. Claiming a certain standard here requires far more substantiation than you have given. I agree that some discussion must be private. But almost all of it? You've got to be kidding me. That's an absurd claim to make. Sure, have one private mailing list/committee, but why not try to have at least *some* important discussion in the open? No one entity claimed or prescribed any level of privacy for the process as a whole, of course; the participants themselves set their own terms. In at least one of the committees with some privacy, Committee B, we can see minutes of their meetings. Moreover, you should give more credit to the great effort put into the public draft commenting system. Even so, much discussion did turn out to be private. Is it unreasonable to guess at why that might be: FSF being stretched to the max to encourage public participation, non-paid public participation in Committee D, relatively large stakes for corporations, etc.? I am sure the process could have been improved. The web site should have done more handholding, for example, and there is never enough publicity. As an ordinary user, I should have done more earlier to make suggestions for the site, for example. In a sense, I have come around to agreeing with you about non-free aspects of the process. In particular, I think money talks, as usual, even here. One could argue that it boils down to the four freedoms versus money. Moreover, the process has involved tradeoffs. However, in no way does there seem to be some overarching covert plan. bronson, I can see that you are trying to make your points more carefully; improving even more would get you better attention than my meager attempts.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 29, 2007 8:16 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Of course I realized that draft 3 was not certain. Given how contentious draft 2 was, however, I'd have thought that releasing a draft 3 would be of critical importance. Even if it remains mostly unchanged, it could be accompanied by annotations or a document describing why the contentious sections are unchanged.
You view the kernel team's position statement timing as a political move. I see it more as an act of desperation. I don't think they wanted to resort to such theatrics; it's not their style. Whether it was justified or not, I think they must have felt like they were pretty much out of options.
You know, it's funny that each side is accusing the other of not listening. And even funnier that each side appears to be correct!
How can we break this communication breakdown? I can offer a suggestion... Release a draft 3. Then let the kernel guys could come up with an updated position statement. I think the MS-Novell deal and the patent clarifications would keep this statement a lot shorter than the last one.
The FSF could then respond, hopefully with more depth than last time (the clarification was awfully brief and dismissive). Above all, the FSF could demonstrate, using actual examples, what clauses the kernel guys could add to the GPLv3 to achieve their goals. Even if it's only academic in this case (presumably the kernel will remain GPLv2 forever), I think it's really worth keeping the kernel devs happy with the FSF's new licenses. You never know when a Linux Kernel NT prototype will be written and require an updated license. :)
Even if no agreement can be reached, at least this way each side would understand why things are the way they are. It would be a lot harder to write confusion off to "typical FSF bureaucratic BS" or "typical prima donna kernel whiners." Hopefully, the kernel guys would know how to modify the GPLv3 to suit their needs, a useful thing even if they never have the opportunity to take advantage of it.
The Linux kernel represents a ton of developers. I really hope that they can end up mostly satisfied with the new GPL.
I've learned a lot from this discussion, b3timmons. Thank you. I just wish it could have occurred somewhere on gplv3.fsf.org. :)
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 29, 2007 15:25 UTC (Mon) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] bronson,
While I agree that it would be nice to see an updated draft soon, the contention really seems to come mainly from the kernel guys. Unfortunately, as RMS originally warned years ago, "Linux kernel = all of FOSS" in the minds of way too many people (I am not saying you!). You question whether the position statement was political, but of course we should note that Torvalds has for a long time played balancing acts of various sorts. Some of these acts involve being political whether he likes it or not. I cannot believe that all of those behind the position statement did not act without their employers in mind. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but, IMHO, the statement was made with other entities in mind, such as Linus's employer, OSDL.
OTOH, the MS-Novell deal worries me, and I would not be surprised if it spooked Moglen, RMS, etc. into brainstorming about more crazy ways that free software can be made effectively nonfree. Note that they, like the other participants, are also representatives. They represent all people who expect the GPL to once again guarantee the freedom that, as stated in its preamble, it intends to guarantee.
You might interesting the thoughts of an upcoming legal eagle, ex-Novell guy Luis Villa. In particular, see his criticisms of both the FSF and the kernel guys:
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 29, 2007 21:45 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] The Linux Foundation desires a strong GPLv3, don't they? You imply that Linus and his "many interests" are bent on harpooning the new GPL. I find this extremely implausible. Much more likely is just typical communications difficulties, no? Especially when exacerbated by the FSF's bureaucracies. Yes, the position statement was too politically loaded, but I hope both parties can overcome this.
Apparently Eben is satisfied that GPLv3 draft 2 is sufficient to prevent the MS-Novell deal in the future. That's good enough for me! I do hope he and RMS are gaming future scenarios; given the skill with which Microsoft convinced Novell to sign this crazy deal, we can be quite sure that the opposition is doing so.
I met Luis a few times when I lived in Boston. I like the guy a lot and follow what he's doing pretty closely. I think he's spot on with pretty much everything he says.
You claim that the contention comes mainly from the kernel guys. Luis isn't a kernel guy, is he? LKMLers tend to loathe Slashdot but there are a number of dissenting voices here: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/06/2046257 Tectonic isn't a kernel mag: http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=914 (this is satire but its position is clear). I'm sure I could find more examples if I kept looking.
Yes, the vast majority of free software developers are silent on the matter. That should not be interpreted as tacit support for the gplv3! Make no mistake: the GPLv3 is still a very controversial license. I really hope the FSF takes the time to get it right.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 20:48 UTC (Sat) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] Since nothing has happened since March 2006, if at all, I hope you understand why I feel disinclined to participate in committee D. Here's a crazy suggestion: open up the discussion. Maybe some mailing list archives, a forum, a regularly updated blog? This stuff is trivial; it takes all of 1/2 hour to set up. It sure would help; right now, gplv3.fsf.org looks totally abandoned. Not all websites hold your hand equally well, but what is so hard about doing a google search: Committee D mailing list site:gplv3.fsf.org The first hit gives: http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d , which you will find shows a lot more activity for Committee D than you suggested. And why have secret police committees? I would really like to know what the GPLv3 drafters thought of the Kernel document. Since gplv3.fsf.org doesn't even acknowledge that the kernel guys exist, what can I do? File a Freedom of Information Act subpoena?? Of course, there were several bits of reaction about the kernel document, including http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification "secret police committees" is just silly. Whether we get a more informed response than mine, we could indulge in a little common sense. Clearly, since companies are involved with concerns that they may wish to not be overly public, is it unreasonable to suppose that a committee with a certain privacy level would elicit more candid feedback from them? Likewise for the other groups. Of course, anyone could always contact any member with any concerns since they are all listed. Answer me this: since gplv3.fsf.org does not go out of its way to acknowledge any outside group, why should it acknowledge the kernel guys? Could you be more specific about some unfair inconsistency? Just imagine if the FSF wrote software using this process! The whole gplv3.fsf.org process demonstrates the very definition of "not open." Nonsense. The only thing not open I see is that some committees have a certain level of privacy. What do you want? For those committees to be totally public and then for the, say, corporate people, to not be frank about their concerns? Don't get me wrong; I can't wait until we have an updated GPL so the Microsoft-Novell hole can be plugged. I just wish the current draft were so encumbered with phantom issues. At this rate, it will take 4 more years to release and, when it finally does get shoved out the door, it will be identical to draft 1 of almost a year ago. Not good. "At this rate"? Are you not aware that they have long had a schedule to keep in order to get it out in two months? Phantom issues indeed: phantom adj : something apparently sensed but having no physical reality; "seemed to hear faint phantom bells"; "the amputee's illusion of a phantom limb" In short, I think your post is presumptuous and ill-informed, but maybe I am missing something. Apart from the MS-Novell deal that they have promised to handle, what are your issues with the second draft?
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 14:31 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Ever wonder what the "cathedral" was that ESR ranted against when he came up with Open Source?
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 15:34 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "So where to draw the line? GPLv3 draws the line at network installs. Whatever parts of the software can be upgraded by the manufacturer over the network have to also be modifiable by the owner."
Can you clarify how you think GPLv3 draws the line at that point? I don't see anything in there that talks about a specific means of installing or even about who can do the installing (despite all the FSF comments about "manufacturers having rights they don't pass along"). It says that if there are checks based on keys, you need to provide the keys.
In reality, manufacturers almost never have the ability to push upgrades into delivered devices, though third parties (cable companies, mobile carriers, etc.) may, usually in conjunction with service contracts. Installs are typically done in stores or at the user's request.
The situation is, in fact (at least for cell phones), just as though the vendor said "we sold you version x of our product, but if you bring it back to the store, we'll swap it for the current version." You could get exactly the same model with ROM, but then the process would take a lot longer, since the owner's data would have to be transferred to the new device.
"The other ways to tackle the current DRM frenzy are to either (a) use our market pressure, but that's just choosing to fail since we have a track record of never using our market pressure effectively, or (b) shake off the power that the content industry has over us by moving to free content - this means discarding all culture made in your county and my country in the last century, and It won't happen."
On the contrary, there is some reason to believe that for music, at least, there is a real trend toward selling DRM-free MP3s (there was an article in the New York Times saying that in the last week <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/technology/23music.html...>).
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 30, 2007 8:09 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] """Can you clarify how you think GPLv3 draws the line at that point? I don't see anything in there that talks about a specific means of installing or even about who can do the installing (despite all the FSF comments about "manufacturers having rights they don't pass along"). It says that if there are checks based on keys, you need to provide the keys."""
Well that's a odd way to state it, but it's fairly effective.
It boils down to it: 'if the manufacturer can change out the software and replace it with a newer version then you should be able to do that also'
That is typically done through network access in embedded devices, but serial port access is common also.
This is different from, say, read-only firmware which the manufacturer doesn't have to let you change it, since they can't change it without taking the device appart and replacing the physical chip.
For example, with OpenMoko and their phones, the regulatory bits are in the firmware logic and only a abstracted form of the GSM tuner (or whatever) is presented to user space in the form of a serial interface which you interact with in a similar fasion to regular old modems.
That way the phone can be completely open source in the kernel (except for a GPS thing, which is another issue entirely) and still be able to respect the legal restrictions requirements.
Also it's prefectly GPLv3 compatable to have it so that you violate warrentees if you try to modify the software and such things. There is nothing in the GPLv3 that says the original manufacture has to remain liable if you change something and break it. Things like that.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Jan 27, 2007 15:43 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
"Picture this scenario: A repository containing the
It's not enough to "claim your contributions". The kernel is mostly a work of collective authorship - it would be impossible to separate out the individual owners, because each contributor's work is a derivative of everybody else's work. You might be able to tease out some contributions that could be shown to be independent, but for huge swaths of the kernel you would just have to say "this long list of people hold the copyright jointly".
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Feb 2, 2007 11:03 UTC (Fri) by sean.hunter (guest, #7920) [Link] While it may or may not be possible theoretically to relicense the Linux kernel, what a lot of people have missed is that the developers would have to *want* to relicense and given that desire, they would have to feel like gpl3 was the one to go for. Neither of these are at all a given.
The kernel developers vary hugely in the extent to which they are interested in the FSF or its goals, but there is a substantial body of key developers who are not very interested in "Debian legal"-type issues and interested primarily in unimpeded cooperation in developing the kernel. For them, the GPL is a pragmatic choice that meets their needs and they choose it for that reason, rather than because they support the wider political and social agenda of the FSF. They just won't want to relicense because they're happy with gpl2 right now. Just like the Linux kernel never asked people to assign copyrights because the key people are happy for everyone to have copyright over the bits they wrote.
Notwithstanding that, if they all did decide that relicensing was worthwhile, the question then becomes "Which License?". Because if you go through the pain, why choose the gpl3 without considering the alternatives? For projects starting 10 years ago, the choice of free licenses boiled down pretty much just to BSD vs GPL. Now there are tons of licenses to choose from so gpl3 would need to be a compelling alternative to all the others.
The fact that the argument over which license to use would be so excruciating might in itself persuade some people not to consider relicensing even if they might otherwise have been in favour of it.
Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3 Posted Feb 13, 2007 21:15 UTC (Tue) by RareCactus (guest, #41198) [Link] While it may or may not be possible theoretically to relicense the Linux kernel, what a lot of people have missed is that the developers would have to *want* to relicense and given that desire, they would have to feel like gpl3 was the one to go for. Neither of these are at all a given.RMS and his followers haven't "missed" that, they've willfully ignored it. Over and over again, RMS has attempted to claim Linux as his own. Do you remember when he tried to tell everyone to call it "GNU/Linux," because most distributions include some GNU code here and there? Of course, to anyone who knows anything, this is completely unreasonable... you might as well call it BSD/Xorg/MIT/GNU/BellLabs/Linux, because code and ideas came from all of those sources. This is just another power grab. Never mind that RMS had nothing to do with creating Linux-- the kernel developers are "being unreasonable" because they are using their own minds to decide what license is best for their code. Maybe at one point RMS was a programmer. But now, he is a politician and that is what politicians do-- try to take power. You can see it in the way he pushes copyright assignation. You can see it in the way he tries to take credit for other people's work. You can see it in the way he's trying to bully the kernel devs now.
|
|||||||||||||