Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:15 UTC (Fri) by emk (subscriber, #1128)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by mattmelton
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

I can see two possible futures:

* In the first future, I'm surrounded by devices running Linux, but none of them are hackable. In each case, the hardware will only load the vendor's own firmware. And all each of these devices will be loyal to somebody else, and ultimately beyond my control.

* In the second future, I'm surrounded by devices running Linux, and each is (in theory) as hackable as the LinkSys routers.

Sure, the desktop may escape the ravages of DRM. But what good is that, if the 50+ little devices I'll own in 10 years are hostile to my freedom? I support the anti-DRM goals of the GPLv3, as both a developer and a user.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 23:02 UTC (Fri) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link] (5 responses)

What about the third future where you are surrounded by devices that
are neither running Linux nor hackable? Surely this is even worse since
you don't even have access to the code for the purpose of running it on
different hardware? Pushing vendors towards completely closed systems
(which is of course an open question, some people see this as a likely
consequence of GPL v3, others don't) would seem to be a clearly bad
outcome.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 8:00 UTC (Sat) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] (4 responses)

How would that be any better than an unmodifiable Linux?

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 10:42 UTC (Sat) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link] (3 responses)

It would clearly be worse. That was my point: use of Linux in embedded
systems is appealing, but it's usually not the only realistic choice (for
one thing embedded OSs are generally priced far more flexibly than desktop
ones) and simply having all the device manufacturers walk away and choose
proprietary OSs achieves nothing. It doesn't prevent the spread of DRM and
it cuts off a useful source of development effort for the kernel. As other
posters have said, changes in legislation are probably a more realistic
way of tackling DRM. There seems to be a perception that manufacturers
have no choice and therefore that relicensing the kernel can be used as a
way of forcing policy changes on them. Now, I'm less averse to that idea
than some of the kernel developers seem to be, but my experience is that
the premise is just false.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 2:52 UTC (Sun) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

The polititions are purchased by the corporations, that is likely an unrealistic way of tackling DRM. If a device isn't hackable it really doesn't matter which non-free kernel is being used. At that point the kernel is only a marketing ploy. The kernel developers are only looking at the corporations as users of the kernel, the end non-corporate users are not even being considered. Being able to purchase a bunch of devices with non-free kernels is not interesting.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 10:36 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link] (1 responses)

So you say that you will have less to pay with if corporations don't use linux. Although for the end user it will not make a bit of a difference whether it is a GPLv2 code in the device or it is a closed source software. I can see where Stallman is going and where Kernel Developers are going. I am sure where my loyalities lie. I am just a user.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 11:58 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link]

s/pay/play/

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 23:09 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

I see a third future where you will have both around you. Look at cars.. most cars/trucks/etc are not hackable in the way they were in the 50's and 60's.. but some are and those the ones that people who love to hack on hardware have in their garages. The people who really don't give a rats ass that they could put in a bigger engine will buy a car that gets them from point a to b with a DVD player in the back just like they always have (no matter how many times at Thanksgiving dinner Uncle Fred says you should buy a XYZ car becuase its one he can work on for you.)

The hackable cars exist because there is a niche money market for it... not because it is better etc. I would love to see a world where everything is hackable.. but I have also come to realize that 99.99% of the world could care less beyond their four "freedoms": sex, food, sleep, and relaxation.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 23:32 UTC (Fri) by tglx (subscriber, #31301) [Link] (10 responses)

> ... And all each of these devices will be loyal to somebody else, and ultimately beyond my control.

GPLv2 grants you usage when you abide to give the changes to the source code back (in form of source code). There is no distinction of user in the sense of the hardware manufactures who uses it for his product and the end user who uses the device which was made by the manufacturer using the code.

GPLv3 is trying to get influence on the way a hardware manufacturer has to do his business. Is there any substantial given right to do so ?

Where do you draw the line ? Is Intel obligated to hand you out their CPU design, just because the CPUs are able to run your code ?

I don't like DRM as the guy next door, but nobody forces me to buy hardware which I don't like.

Your 50+ little devices are a strawman argument for some kind of ethereal freedom.

My freedom is to decide what I buy and what I hack on and for this I do not need paternalism by RMS.

tglx

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 3:00 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (5 responses)

What part of the draft requires CPU designs from Intel?

Such statements are the reason that the gplv3.fsf.org requires people to attached their comments to a specific sentence.

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 15:52 UTC (Sat) by tglx (subscriber, #31301) [Link] (4 responses)

I said:

"Where do you draw the line ? Is Intel obligated to hand you out their CPU design, just because the CPUs are able to run your code ? "

I nowhere said that the GPLv3 draft is requiring this. I was pointing out in which direction this might go, if you are thinking beyond the rim of the TIVOed hardware.

tglx

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 1:59 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, if your scenario was hypothetical, you've nothing to worry about since nobody has suggested going that far in that direction.

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 23:53 UTC (Sun) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624) [Link] (2 responses)

Not yet, anyway...

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 25, 2006 5:45 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (1 responses)

> Not yet, anyway...

If and when the FSF is in a position to go that far (in the draft of the
GPLv9, say) ... then it will have secured not only software freedom but
also design freedom. Onward and upwards!

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 25, 2006 14:55 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

And they'll still be claiming "Oh, these chages are completely in the spirit of GPLv2..", which they'll be able to do, of course, because "in the spirit of" has no legal meaning or clear definition...

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 8:05 UTC (Sat) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] (3 responses)

Nobody forces you to use code which you don't like, either. If you don't like software that's licensed with GPLv3, then don't pretend that you're entitled to a free ride.

Usage of GPLv3 is a decision that's ultimately left to the creator of the software, not the user. The user is left with the decision of which software to use.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:01 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, I think that's what the kernel folks just said - it's their choice and they choose GPLv2...

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 3:16 UTC (Sun) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] (1 responses)

So why are they blaming the FSF when it is the kernel hackers that are making the choice to allow the kernel to be used in non-free ways? It is their choice, it is their responsibility. The FSF hasn't changed their goals they are just responding to new circumstances and doing what they have promised their users since the beginning. I have no dought that the device manufacturers and media companies will take the kernel hackers response as a green light to use more spyware and lock down their devices even more.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 15:02 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

I don't think they're "blaming the FSF" for anything except potentially fragmenting the development community. THey're just saying that GPLv3 draft 2 is not in the same spirit that they licensed their code under and they do not intend to change to use the new version if it contains the indicated additional conditions.

I do agree that the FSF is pursuing its goals as it did from the beginning, and that like every politically-oriented organization, it is interpreting success as a mandate to expand its reach. Many organizations find out that overreaching erodes their support base, eventually to the point that their community splinters and their group becomes marginal.