Leading items

Two views of freedom and software

Feature freezes can be a relatively boring time to read the linux-kernel mailing list. Discussions of cool new developments tend to get put to the side in favor of benchmark results and bug fixes. But even people who wish for more interesting discourse are likely to agree that when Richard Stallman starts posting on linux-kernel, things have probably taken a wrong turn. But, stuffed in between some classic Stallmanisms ("Just as some people insist the Earth is flat, or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the whole system is Linux.") is a discussion of a fundamental disagreement over the nature of freedom and software.

The issue at hand, yet again, is that of binary-only kernel modules. But the real, underlying issue has to do with where true freedom is to be found. Would users of a Linux system that disallowed closed-source modules be more or less free? In general, what effect does proprietary software have on freedom?

The point of view championed by Mr. Stallman (and many others) is that proprietary software is always bad for freedom. For example:

According to this point of view, the best case scenario is that a proprietary program weakens the motivation to develop free alternatives, and is thus bad for freedom.

The other point of view says that true freedom means letting the author of a program decide how that program is to be licensed, and letting users choose which programs they wish to use. A binary-only kernel module gives Linux users access to (say) more hardware and thus increases their freedom. Proprietary software can help fund innovation and, even, the creation of more free software. According to this viewpoint, restricting proprietary software not only has an immediate (negative) effect on freedom, it can also impact the availability of free software.

This argument highlights a fundamental division in the Linux community. It can be swept under the rug much of the time - Linux offers much that is good for everybody involved, and philosophical differences can be overlooked most of the time. But the division remains, and it can surface at inconvenient times.

Any vendor of proprietary kernel modules can not help but be nervous about this issue. Kernel developers are, as a whole, more concerned with making the kernel better than with making life difficult for proprietary software vendors (though they are not always entirely concerned about making life easy for those vendors). But the potential for lawsuits from a developer holding copyrights on the kernel source exists. This concern led developer Andre Hedrick to announce his withdrawal from Linux development (though he later backed down from that position).

It is thus good that one thing that might actually come out of this long linux-kernel flame war is a clearer statement of what sort of proprietary kernel modules are permissible. There may even be an early, rough consensus along these lines:

• Binary-only modules are acceptible as long as they stick to the exported API. This is, essentially, the informal understanding which has been in force for years.

• Kernel header files are considered to be a part of the exported API - something which has never been clearly stated before. Even more to the point, inline functions in header files (of which the kernel has many) are also deemed to be part of the exported API.

This statement, if it holds, makes it clear that proprietary kernel modules are generally acceptible. So far, there have not been public objections to this position. If the kernel developers can settle behind this sort of statement, vendors will have a better idea of where they stand, and uncertainty in general will be reduced. The difference over opinion on freedom will remain, but it need not get in the way of people and companies actually trying to do things with Linux.

Comments (34 posted)

Jon Johansen acquitted

Jon Johansen, one of the developers responsible for the creation and distribution of the DeCSS code, has been found not guilty of all of the charges which had been pressed against him in a Norwegian court. According to the court, if you buy a film on DVD, you have the right to access that film, even if you do not use the tools envisioned by the entertainment industry. In one country, at least, the DeCSS code is legal.

This particular case may not be done yet, since Norwegian law apparently allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal. It is, however, a major victory; the court looked at the fundamental issues and ruled in favor of freedom.

Mr. Johansen's acquittal, along with the ElcomSoft acquittal, gives rise to hope that 2003 may be the year in which the intellectual property takeover tide is turned. People (and courts) are seeing beyond the piracy rhetoric and looking at the real costs of increasing power over information. Maybe, just maybe, this particular power grab can be stopped before it's too late.

That outcome is far from assured, however. Proposed legislation worldwide threatens to impose DMCA-like anti-circumvention measures, and the CBDTPA will certainly return to the U.S. Senate. The entertainment industry is still flush with money and lawyers, and has shown no signs of changing its approach; Jack Valenti is still calling for "speed bumps to keep people honest." A couple of important - if small - battles have been won, but the real fight is just beginning. As beginnings go, however, this is a nice one.

Comments (1 posted)

The big noise over Open Publishing

[This article was contributed by LWN reader Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier]

There's been a lot of media attention focused on Prentice Hall's plan to publish books published under the Open Publication License branded as the "Bruce Perens Open Source Series." There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but what most of the media is failing to mention is that publishing books under open licenses isn't exactly a revolutionary idea.

Books published under open licenses of one sort or another have been around almost as long as Linux. The Linux Documentation Project was published in a number of forms very early on, including the Linux Bible by Yggdrasil and the Linux Encyclopedia published by WorkGroup Solutions. For a while, that was just about the only printed documentation available for Linux. Other open source titles started to follow in 1999 and 2000 after Linux started to be viewed as a commercial opportunity by publishers.

The list of titles available under open source licenses these days is pretty hefty. This is a list of just a few titles that are relatively current:

• Advanced Linux Programming (New Riders).
• GIMP - The Official Handbook (Coriolis).
• Grokking the GIMP (New Riders).
• GTK+/GNOME Application Development (New Riders).
• KDE 2.0 Development (Sams Publishing).
• Learning with Python (Green Tea Press).
• The Linux Cookbook (No Starch Press).
• Linux Device Drivers (O'Reilly).
• Practical PostgreSQL (O'Reilly).
• Vi IMproved (New Riders).
• Using Samba (O'Reilly).
• The Zope Book (New Riders).

That's hardly a definitive list, there are many more out there. Nearly every publisher that has dabbled in Linux titles has released a few books under open licenses. Some publishers have tried to make a fast buck by compiling open source documentation, others have agreed to publish original works under open licenses. Some titles have sold well, and others not so well but the sales figures are more likely a reflection of the topic or content of the title than the license that the book is published under. In fact, Prentice Hall has published other books under open licenses, but with much less fanfare.

The unique thing about Prentice Hall's approach is that it specifically trying to create a brand centered around books under open licenses. Bruce Perens told us that Prentice Hall decided to brand the books with his name because they "felt that anyone could do an Open Source series, and they needed an additional differentiator. That differentiator is my leadership of the series, they feel I have credibility in this space." He says that he's very happy for the publicity. "I definitely want it. All the publicity that I could get because it definitely helps the Free Software community for people outside the community to see that more stuff is being done in the Free Software paradigm."

Perens says that the book will be published electronically about three months after the print versions hit store shelves. The reason for the lag is to give Prentice Hall time to "saturate the market" with the print version, to reduce the incentive for other publishers to republish the same content in print form.

Right now, Prentice Hall has three books available and several more in the works. Perens says that the company is not putting an upper limit on the number of titles that they will publish in this series. Authors writing for the series will be getting the same kind of publishing agreements from Prentice Hall, including comparable advances and royalties. Perens has received about twenty or thirty proposals since the series was announced, and he says he's game for more.

He also noted that the company does not intend to invoke any of the non-free optional clauses of the OPL, and that they may very well publish titles under other free licenses like the GNU Free Documentation License.

With any luck, if Prentice Hall is seen to be successful, other publishers will follow suit and commit more resources to publishing titles under free licenses. There are a number of advantages to having documentation freely available, aside from being able to get the title for free. Computer publishers are notorious for letting titles go out of print if the sales aren't up to par, making many good technology titles unavailable for all intents and purposes. Publication under a free license also opens the door for translations of titles that might not otherwise be produced, and updated versions when the author and/or publisher has lost interest in a title.

Free software benefits greatly from free documentation. This move by Prentice Hall is a welcome development in that it should produce more free documentation for our community. The community must keep in mind, however, that this sort of experiment will be short-lived if the market for books collapses. If we want free (as in speech) documentation, we need to put our money where our eyeballs are.

Comments (5 posted)