Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 20:27 UTC (Sat) by steelpillow (guest, #40703)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by BrucePerens
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Bruce Perens wrote, "Ultimately, we need to recognize that Linux is a 15-year-old kernel and that there will be another technical development to superscede it eventually. I can't say what that will be, but I think the best chance of mobilizing individual contribution to it would be to use GPL 3."

That made me check my crystal ball. I saw a massive fork of just about everything into -2 and -3 licensed streams. Most developers, especially the paid staffers, needed to see their stuff happen on Linux, and followed the -2 fork. The -3 forks one by one joined the HURD on the back burner. Then a new OS came along, and in order to leverage all that Linux-friendly stuff it was released under GPL v2.4.

Things got a bit blurry after that, where my tears had fallen. I wiped them away and caught someone saying, "the place to fight unwelcome licensing laws is the legislative process, not the licenses themselves." I lost contact.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 17:41 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (10 responses)

Well, RMS has the best crystal ball of anyone I know. He sat down in the early eighties and envisioned a lot of what would go wrong today. So, I take him very seriously. I think his failure this time is mainly a PR failure. He's not involved the kernel developers in solving the problem.

Bruce

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 3:45 UTC (Mon) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] (1 responses)

> I think his failure this time is mainly a PR failure.
> He's not involved the kernel developers in solving the problem.

I really don't understand what else he could do. The kernel developers aren't interested in any changes. What do you think he could have done differently? It is rather difficult to involve those that don't want to be involved.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 30, 2006 12:44 UTC (Sat) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]

> I really don't understand what else he could do. The kernel developers
> aren't interested in any changes.
> What do you think he could have done differently? It is rather
> difficult to involve those that don't want to be involved.

For Linus Torvalds, this is true - he absolutely said "not" to GPLv3.

However, a set of kernel developers, in their whitepaper about this
(http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/) are pointing out significant issues in
GPLv3, and he should consider those issues and try to solve them.

For the DRM thing, that clause would stop a Linux kernel signed by any
distro. When you run a binary kernel from a distro, requiring a signature
from the kernel builder (think to Debian) would effectively stop
insertion of non-authorized modules (think to Adore or such rootkits);
but GPLv3 would disallow this (I think). Also, code for this has been
written IIRC by Fedora, so this is not "theoretical".

Developers also think the distinction between such cases and DRM abuses
is impossible to draw in a license, because it is connected to political
reasons. RMS should prove them wrong on this point.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 5:01 UTC (Mon) by zorgan (guest, #4016) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, RMS has the best crystal ball of anyone I know. He sat down in the early eighties and envisioned a lot of what would go wrong today.

True, its fantastic how right he was, and especially his creation of the GPL was amazingly innovative and successful. But that doesn't mean that he is always right, and in fact IMNSHO he has been wrong often enough. (Think: cathedral...)

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 13:01 UTC (Mon) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] (1 responses)

>he has been wrong often enough. (Think: cathedral...)

Can you explain this? What exactly do you mean?
"cathedral" reminds me only on "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" but that has nothing to do with RMS, that's Eric Raymond's thing.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 28, 2006 17:25 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

One of the arguments behind Cathederal and Bazaar that has been lost was how development around FSF itmes seemed very insular around Boston. The Emacs/Xemacs and the gcc/ecgs forks were due to a very Cathederal take that the FSF had over its own software. The HURD/Linux "fork" was also an example. HURD was built as a cathederal and had many incarnations that booted but didn't cover everything that the people wanted back then to show. Linux booted but barely had a user environment and it went out the door.

Talking about Linux to RMS was a "forbidden" topic where one would get a nice letter chastising people over using something that was taking away effort from FSF goals. He never answered my question when I could get a bootable HURD to test this stuff with. After a while the stern lecture about hurting FSF got replaced by saying that Linux had to be called GNU/Linux.

So when ESR originally wrote C&B he was talking about how the Linux development model was better than the closed door FSF model. FSF has changed a lot since then.. so you get better access to their snapshots and stuff

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 5:41 UTC (Mon) by charris (guest, #13263) [Link] (2 responses)

I have the impression that RMS has actually antagonized the kernel developers, among others, over the years. Just because the kernel uses the GPL doesn't mean the developers owe RMS eternal gratitude and must hang on his every word. Indeed, perhaps RMS should express some gratitude to Linus. The kernel is probably the highest profile project out there using the GPL, and without the kernel there would be no GPL operating system to run the toolset on.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 4:20 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

There are FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels, which can be forked to GPL. Debian has GNU systems using a BSD kernel. Also Hurd was also functional as a kernel until they decided go L4 on it.

Not that I'd actually want to run one of those kernels.. Linux is by far the most sophisticated and best performing kernel aviable. It's just the best.

RMS is fine. You can't seem to trust him.. but as long as your goals are the same as his then everything is cherry.

What is going on here is just different points of view.

The Kernel developers like the GPL because it compels third parties to contribute code back into the Linux kernel. They don't seem care about the freedom so much or helping to ensure the freedom of end users of products using their software.

They are dedicated to making the kernel as usefull and most effective kernel it can be.

The political nature of RMS's message of his brand of 'Freedom' is counteractive to that goal, going with the current GPLv3 draft would sacrifice some commercial interests of Linux which would benifit Linux developers with code, testing, support, etc etc.

Personally I am a end user and obviously for my own self interest I would like the kernel to go GPLv3 because it would help me avoid devices that claim they 'run linux', but are not hackable. It would help to ensure that companies won't try to sneak restrictions in on me. Anything to make DRM less attractive for hardware developers is a good thing to me.

However I doubt that that realy is the highest priority for the kernel devs. I don't blame them.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:49 UTC (Tue) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]

Right. I just can see the crowds of BSD developers jumping on the
chance to work on GPLv3 forks of *BSD kernels and leaving the
original branches stranded and obsolete. Well, actually I can't,
but I guess it's just another example of kernel folks not having
sufficient proficiency with crystal balls and other fraud paraphrenalia...

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 20:56 UTC (Mon) by steelpillow (guest, #40703) [Link] (1 responses)

It seems to me that RMS has not succeeded in involving the kernel developers even in believing that there is a problem to solve - at least not a licensing problem - never mind in how to solve it.

In the end it is content (present or future) which sells the OS, and if GPL3 blocks out the content providers then GPL3-ed stuff will just not get used.

There are content-rich restrictive OS out there. The content providers can afford to just ignore us. To bring them in to line will, I suspect, need more than just a rewritten license. There are many growing movements for restriction-free content: musicians posting free downloads, ogg vorbis, and so on. The black hats are evolving a coordinated strategy against all this. We need to do the same. Maybe GPL3 will have its day - I sure hope so. But is now really the right moment? I think the gut instinct of the kernel developers is "not yet."

Someone commented that GPL3 is in essence political. Maybe. At any rate, one key ingredient of successful politics is persuasion. Another is timing.

Guy

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 29, 2006 18:51 UTC (Fri) by bronson (guest, #4806) [Link]

To bring them in to line will, I suspect, need more than just a rewritten license...

We're talking about freedom, aren't we? Is there a need to to bring anybody into line? If you want to impose your own morals on other people then, I agree, it will take more than a license to do it!