Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:10 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137)
In reply to: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) by Jel
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Trying to absorb other licenses?

Linus specifically mentions the Apache license, which can be converted to GPLv3, but not vise versa.

Classic Linus:

'Compatible' is such a nice word. Let's just all sing songs about it around the camp-fire.

:-)

to post comments

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:23 UTC (Tue) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link] (1 responses)

Frankly, I don't see why anyone has the grounds to call that wrong. These
'Compatible' licenses deliberately allow this sort of appropriation. If
people didn't want that to happen, they should have used Copyleft.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:20 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Exactly.

If they didn't want people to place additional restrictions on their software then it's obvious that using a Apache or BSD license would of been a bad choice.

But Apache license is specificly choosen because it allows things like that.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 26, 2006 18:01 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>Linus specifically mentions the Apache license, which can be converted to GPLv3, but not vise versa.

(from article)'"But if you actually look behind all the nice words, it's just a polite way of saying, "We want to hijack the code of those projects that use the Apache license, too, and turn that code into GPLv3".

The license is compatible, which means software of which the sourcecode is comprised of sourcecode licensed under the GPL and sourcecode under a GPL-compatible license can be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
If a recipient of that composed sourcecode would rewrite the sourcecode under the GPL he is free to further distribute it under the other license.

It is a disingenuous thing to say, since it has always been this way with the 3-clause BSD license and the GPL, and to my recollection he has never mentioned that combination in such a overtly GPL-hostile manner.

In fact, the exact opposite has happened before:
A piece of BSD licenced code in the kernel inadvertently got published under GPL.
The original author mentioned that to Linus on lkml, but his claim was denied. There was some uproar about it but the offending code was soon completely replaced by a rewritten GPL version and the discussion petered out.
This misunderstanding was for licenses he was actively using instead of a license of which he made it clear he wants no deeper understanding of. So that left me wondering how much Linus actually cares about licensing issues, and if he doesn't care all too much, then why is he so outspoken about the GPLv3 ?

> Classic Linus:
>> 'Compatible' is such a nice word. Let's just all sing songs about it around the camp-fire.
>:-)

Linus-isms on technical subjects can be entertaining from time to time. Unfortunately in this case the rogueish streak in his character makes it look like he is trying to filibuster the process of shaping the GPLv3.