Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 20:08 UTC (Fri) by Tester (guest, #40675)
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

I dont know if I have missed something, but can't the DRM clause just be ignored by adding an additional permission? Like "Linux license is gplv3 + you are allowed to distribute without giving crypto keys and to implement DMCA technological protection measures". Would that solve the problem for you?

And isnt destroying software patent portfolios just what we are trying to achieve. Since software patents are considered by most Free Software developers to be BAD BAD BAD. And even if the kernel stays under the GPLv2, the FSF's code will be under gplv3, so we are pretty much guaranteed that any Linux distributor except for tiny embedded systems will have to do accept the license. Except if you plan on forking gcc, glibc, binutils, etc.

But I agree that the additionnal restrictions clause is nasty for license proliferation..

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:45 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

That would be worse than staying with GPLv2: such a license (with an
`additional permission' would not be GPLv3 *nor* GPLv2 compatible.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:30 UTC (Sat) by Tester (guest, #40675) [Link]

> That would be worse than staying with GPLv2: such a license (with an
> `additional permission' would not be GPLv3 *nor* GPLv2 compatible.

If you read the GPLv3 draft, you can it would be GPLv3 compatible (and maybe only GPLv2 compatible).. Those license both state that you cannot add more restrictions, but you can always add more permissions. That's why the X11 license is GPL compatible..

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 23:23 UTC (Fri) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link] (3 responses)

And even if the kernel stays under the GPLv2, the FSF's code will be under gplv3, so we are pretty much guaranteed that any Linux distributor except for tiny embedded systems will have to do accept the license.

This is not the case. I work with several large consumer electronics companies, and I can assure you that the balkanization referred to by the kernel developers in the position statement is a very real possibility.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 5:17 UTC (Sat) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] (1 responses)

Agreed. It's not unlikely that the embedded market will turn to some yet-to-be-invented hybrid environment, with Linux as the kernel and something non-FSF running in userspace. I imagine we'll see various embedded vendors each selling their own closed source POSIX-compliant userspace kit (libc + basic utils) with varying degrees of support for popular non-GPLv3 packages such as Apache.

It would be sad to see the embedded market lose the benefits of commoditized software, but that's a far more likely scenario than RMS forcing the world to give up DRM. Nobody wants to see the NAS market move from Samba to six different broken CIFS packages or the STB market move from FFmpeg to six different broken AVI demuxers, but if the FSF is successful in tearing the industry in two, that's exactly where we're headed.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 10:49 UTC (Sat) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link]

>Linux as the kernel and something non-FSF running in userspace
In a lot of devices this has already happened: replacing the GNU
environment with something that will fit into a sensible amount of flash
is often a high priority when trying to do something with Linux on a
cost-sensitive device. The obvious choice at the moment seems to be
busybox + uclibc. This is free software (GPL and, I think LGPL but could
be wrong) and from a look at their mailing list it seems unlikely busybox
will relicense as v3 in the near future.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:34 UTC (Sat) by Tester (guest, #40675) [Link]

>> And even if the kernel stays under the GPLv2, the FSF's code will be under gplv3, so we are pretty much guaranteed that any Linux distributor except for tiny embedded systems will have to do accept the license.

> This is not the case. I work with several large consumer electronics companies, and I can assure you that the balkanization referred to by the kernel developers in the position statement is a very real possibility.

I was refering to the computer companies (IBM, HP, Sun, SGI, etc) and not the embedded world. And those have just started getting rid of their own OSes. So yes they could in theory replace the GPLv3 code, but they wont. Because they have discovered how costly it is to do.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:27 UTC (Sat) by sanjoy (subscriber, #5026) [Link]

can't the DRM clause just be ignored by adding an additional permission

You can add additional permissions only for code you contribute, so Tivo wouldn't be able to add such a permission to most of the Linux kernel.