Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 23, 2006 11:35 UTC (Sat) by rmorgan11 (guest, #40695)
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

First, the appropriate place to discuss the GPLv3 is via gplv3.fsf.org. The FSF is doing everything it can to understand all objections people have to the current draft of GPLv3. This is not a take-it-or-leave-it draft. These kernel developers are doing the Free Software community a big disservice by grandstanding in public instead of working with the FSF and its law team.

However, when we read the misstatements and FUD in their "position", we have to wonder what their agenda is. For example:

1. "The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve."

It's trying to solve the thwarting of the intention of the GPL by technical means - as done by Tivo. That's an identified problem, and since it defeats one of the aims of the GPL, it's unarguably a substantial problem.

2. "As drafted, this currently looks like it would potentially jeopardise the entire patent portfolio of a company simply by the act of placing a GPLv3 licensed programme on their website."

This is complete nonsense - pure FUD. If anyone had come close to persuading Moglen that the draft really did this, he'd change it immediately, and these kernel developers know that. It's FUD-generation of the most dishonest kind.

to post comments

Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 23, 2006 13:32 UTC (Sat) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (4 responses)

1/ The kernel developers are not trying to "grandstand in public".
Linus asked a few key developers (smaller conversations often work better
than big ones) for their opinions to see whether his opinions were in tune
with the community or not. This group found general (though not complete)
uniformity and so shared those opinions with the wider community
(lkml). Based on the response there, a community position (or more likely
range-of-positions) will probably go to a more formal forum.

2/ So it's all Tivo's fault is it?
Director of Tivo to ... whoever:
"Honey, I shrunk the GPL!"

DRM is about hardware. TIVO is making a box that cannot be hacked.
"Technical measures" are not really about what you can do with the
software, but about what you can do with the hardware. I think
trying to say what hardware GPL software may be run on is the wrong
thing to be saying in a licence. The TIVO software (that part which
derives from GPL code) is still free. But it you don't have hardware
that will run it, that is hardly their problem.

While I would prefer that all hardware I purchased was completely
open and hackable, I think that putting such a requirement in the
licence would cause trouble and solve little.

3/ I think the patent provisions in the draft are good (at least in
principle) and that is one of the reasons my name isn't on the letter.
It wasn't signed by everyone who was consulted.

We had hoped that the poll results and position paper would start
discussion of the relative merits of the GPLv3 draft in the context
of the Linux Kernel, not that it would cause flames and
claims of FUD. A naive hope maybe.

Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 23, 2006 14:53 UTC (Sat) by timtas (guest, #2815) [Link] (2 responses)

> We had hoped that the poll results and position paper would start
> discussion of the relative merits of the GPLv3 draft in the context
> of the Linux Kernel, not that it would cause flames and
> claims of FUD.

So why then do they spread FUD ? They certainly do.

I don't think the kernel should move to GPLv3, no project should. But all I read in this position on the GPLv3 draft is about ecosystem provided by kind distributors and nice companies owning substancial software patent portfolios upon which we rely and shouldn't get angry.

I would have no problem if this postion was signed by representatives of Novell, Red Hat and IBM, but it quite strange to get this from "the kernel developers", completely speaking for themselves and not in the least for their companies that pay their wages.

Everybody has to make a living, but you should at least be honest about it.

Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 24, 2006 6:07 UTC (Sun) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

So why then do they spread FUD ? They certainly do

I don't claim to speak for the people who wrote the letter, but if they are speading FUD, then maybe it is because:

They have a real fear that this new license will be rejected by many and - as it is incompatible with GPLv2 - this will cause a balkanisation in the FLOSS arena with many GPLv2 vs GPLv3 forks. This is seriously possible and would not be a good thing.
They are profoundly uncertain that the value added by this license is worth the cost of the destabilisation it could cause, and because
They truely doubt that the "no technical measures" provisions will only stop unwanted measures but may also stop truely valuable technical measures (yes, there probably are some).

It is OK to spead FUD when you genuinely feel fear, uncertainty and doubt yourself.

Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 24, 2006 14:13 UTC (Sun) by cyd (guest, #4153) [Link]

> I would have no problem if this postion was signed by representatives of
> Novell, Red Hat and IBM, but it quite strange to get this from "the kernel
> developers", completely speaking for themselves and not in the least for
> their companies that pay their wages.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair

Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 25, 2006 21:14 UTC (Mon) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

We had hoped that the poll results and position paper would start discussion of the relative merits of the GPLv3 draft in the context of the Linux Kernel, not that it would cause flames and claims of FUD. A naive hope maybe.

You would of course have received such regardless, but I think the field was sown with salt to start. Linus was quoted or claimed by various reports with arguments (unsubstantiated) that the GPLv3 would require developers to hand out their encryption keys and other nonsense. The GNU folks sent out a series of videos and watchables of taking questions and making very clear rationales for the changes being placed in the new license, their (initial) case was essentially made. Then this position paper was published, with some parts quite clear, but some arguments not fully made, and others totally nuts ("the new GPL is political").

The onus is on the dissenters at this point to clearly support their view that the specific new provisions are either a) impractical or b) immoral by clear arguments, not just claims.

I think that this case can be made, and I think that these dissenters have the knowledge to make them, but this article fell short of the mark, and so you are seeing a higher level of ire than you might have.

Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:31 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

"irst, the appropriate place to discuss the GPLv3 is via gplv3.fsf.org. "

Well, that's one place to express opinions. However, (a) it's not "discussion", because the people you're speaking to don't anwser you except by, possibly, updating the next draft six months later, and (b) the software supporting the site is great for very narrow comments on brief phrases, but isn't designed for larger objections and comments on whole sections.

I have no idea whether they submitted the letter to the FSF; note that the draft process includes both comments entered through the site and comments provided through other channels.

Very ill-thought-out position

Posted Sep 25, 2006 0:55 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

The gplv3.fsf.org portal is designed to take all sorts of comments. To comment on a whole section, attach your comment to the section title. Comments are also accepted by email, to ensure not to exclude people who can't get the gplv3.fsf.org portal working, but this is a backup system only.

The comment procedure is that you pick a part of the licence, and make a comment on the text in that part of the licence. If you have to do this by email, that's acceptable. ...but if you want to write an open letter that makes no reference to the actual text of the licence, then it will be very hard for a meaningful discussion or reaction.

I hope that if they submit this to FSF, they make it a preamble/preface/introduction/explanation along with some comments on the actual licence text.