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

Posted Sep 23, 2006 4:25 UTC (Sat) by charris (guest, #13263)
In reply to: What I wish the kernel developers had actually come out and said by louie
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

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

to post comments

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 :)