What I wish the kernel developers had actually come out and said

Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:43 UTC (Fri) by louie (guest, #3285)
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

I just threw a really, really long post at my blog about this, in which I go into what I think the kernel guys were really getting at. But really the critical part is that this is what they could have said, which I think was really the heart of what they wanted to say:

We believe that our particular community of GPL v2 users have come over time to a different definition of freedom than the FSF. We believe that the focus of the GPL should be on the elements that encourage collaborative participation, which include simplicity, enforced code-sharing, and end-user freedom. We reject the FSFs attempt to define freedom in such a way as to include charged issues like DRM and patents, which our contributors disagree greatly about. As a result, we call on the FSF to stop the current discussion about GPL v3 and create a GPL v2.1, which does not seek to expand the Freedoms of GPL v2 in controversial directions, and instead focuses on strengthening and clarifying the terms of the current GPL so that we can more securely defend the rights and freedoms we believe we currently have, and which we have created a large community around.

This would have been a lot more straightforward and gotten across the true heart of their beef- which I think has a lot of merit, to be honest, even though in the end I disagree with them. I think the discussion would have been a lot better off if they would come out and say it instead of beating around the bush.

What I wish the kernel developers had actually come out and said

Posted Sep 23, 2006 4:25 UTC (Sat) by charris (guest, #13263) [Link] (1 responses)

Nicely done.

What I find odd is that many are calling the more restrictive GPL v3 license freer. It isn't. I would put public domain at the top of the free pile, and certainly the BSD, Boost license, and MIT license rank higher in that regard than the GPL v2. Now, is that sort of unfettered freedom a good thing? I would say it depends. Science and mathematics, I think, belong in the public domain, and perhaps most tax funded projects. But what about free software?

I think it generally the case that in order for a group of people to cooperate for the general good there need to be restrictions, something that prevents some version of the tragedy of the commons. But I also feel these restrictions should be the minimum required to achieve the larger end. So, what is the larger end in this case? The kernel developers seem to have the position that the code should be available and that those who benefit and build upon it should contribute their additions back to the public pool. The GPL v2 seems to achieve this as measured by its success, so why use the more restrictive GPL v3? This argument appeals to me. The GPL also seems to aim at fighting a different battle, the DRM battle, that could be considered outside the narrow goals of the kernel. Such battles would draw the kernel into a larger war that would be a distraction from its technical aims.

I would add that after the DRM there will be something else, there always is. And in the long term, individuals themselves may want the ability to lock down their hardware as a matter of privacy. So this is not just about corporations, it is about having the means to keep other people out of your stuff. We may all wish for such means in the future, so let us not limit developments up front.

Chuck

What I wish the kernel developers had actually come out and said

Posted Sep 23, 2006 8:22 UTC (Sat) by bbrv (guest, #24018) [Link]

Nicely done by you too Chuck!

For us, making DRM part of v3 was too far to reach. A better view/solution can be accomplished
by separating _security_ to be defined in technical terms from _privacy_ to be understood as a
personal choice (see obtaining a new mobile phone vs. a new computer). Privacy is another sort
of "freedom" issue that emanates from the user. The decision gate comes before our choice of
use.

As Chuck correctly observes: "in order for a group of people to cooperate for the general
good there need to be restrictions, something that prevents some version of the tragedy of the
commons." Therein is the bigger and *different* discussion.

Placing these distinctions, which DRM and "security" features become, into the devices we use
make choice an option and the leave the foundational concepts of freedom which define GPL in
tact as they apply to the overall movement. Bringing DRM into GPL was the application of _too
much of a good thing_. It is time to ask FSF to please go back to the drawing board.

Our compliments to the "kernel developers." Good work! Freedom is not free - thanks for the
effort.

R&B :)

What I wish the kernel developers had actually come out and said

Posted Sep 25, 2006 10:54 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link]

"We believe that the focus of the GPL should be on the elements that encourage collaborative participation, which include simplicity, enforced code-sharing, and end-user freedom."

Please remove the "end user freedom" from the list. It is not compatible with DRM. Thank you.

FSF is a end user concerned entity. This all started because of a Printer user. And the latest is because of a PVR user. The problems are the same. The GPL is being thwarted by a technological measure. If it is illegal to remove a technological measure for piracy, why is it legal to use a technological mesure for breaking GPL.