Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:06 UTC (Tue) by gallir (guest, #5735)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)
It's just another demonstration that the smartest and brilliant engineer
can also talk as an asshole.
I really cannot understand the FUD and lies coming from respected Linux
hackers regarding the GPL3 [open] process.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:15 UTC (Tue)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:07 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (10 responses)
Ditto. If you'll look at what GPLv3 actually does today - it does not do anything beyond what GPLv2 (and GPLv1) was supposed to do. A user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. This was the goal from the very beginning. And it's not changed! The whole GNU (and consequently GPLvX) story started with printer driver: RMS was unable to play with it, he become frustrated and the rest is history. GPLv2 served great for a lot of years but eventually some methods to circumvent it were found: with DRM and madatory checking of signatures it became possible to make GPL-licensed programs unhackable again! Thus the whole effort behind GNU become kind of pointless: we do have complete GNU/Linux system - yet a user can not make changes "himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him". GPLv3 adresses this problem - no more, no less. All changes are going back to this goal: explicit patent grant (to free "any available programmer or company" from patent problems), DRM (to make it possible to load changed version), i18n (to make it possible to hire foreign "programmer or compaby"), etc. Yes, it's dangerous ground to play with - but it's also required ground to cover today. Because otherwise the whole effort behind GNU will be useless soon...
Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:32 UTC (Tue)
by leoc (guest, #39773)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:28 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (8 responses)
The kernel has a GPLv2-only license, precisely to remove the uncertainty that today's situation generates. Back then (like today) the FSF was generally hostile towards Linux and there was no guarantee that the FSF would not create a new license "against" Linux.
So whether the GPLv3 fulfills what the GPLv2 was "supposed to do in the FSF's view" is pretty much besides the point - the FSF only wrote the ~600 lines GPL license, the kernel developers wrote the other 7 million lines of code. Thus what matters mostly is the Linux kernel contributors' view on this issue.
(and if you claim the FSF wrote the toolchain that's not true anymore either, while the FSF has the copyrights assigned, both glibc and gcc was largely written and is being written and maintained by non-FSF people.)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:08 UTC (Wed)
by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742)
[Link] (1 responses)
What makes someone a Linux Hacker? Right, if he contributes to linux.
Posted Sep 28, 2006 21:54 UTC (Thu)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link]
Right. GNU is a tiny amount of code contributed for/by the FSF, plus everything they can freely share the source code to. In that sense, GNU is truly larger than Linux. But what the FSF has really contributed is a small fraction of that.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 8:15 UTC (Wed)
by forthy (guest, #1525)
[Link] (2 responses)
The kernel has a GPLv2-only license This is a misinterpretation of Linus' comment at the beginning of the
COPYING file in the kernel. Linus can't change the GPL, since the GPL
itself is copyrighted by the FSF. He also can't change the license
conditions of the original authors of all the files that went into Linux
until he made that commend (in the 2.4.0-test series). So what he can do
is to clarify under which conditions he's redistributing the assembly of
all those GPL and BSD licensed files. And that's "under GPLv2". As he did single-handedly choose this condition, he can also
single-handedly choose to rethink. It's his right to choose the
conditions unter which he's distributing the kernel, because all GPLv2
code is GPLv2 or later unless explicitely stated otherwise - by the
author (as recipient, you get a direct license from the author, so the
author has to say something)! So far, no author of Linux other than Linus
himself has made such a statement - if you grep the kernel for copyright
statements in file headers, you find that roughly one fourth of the
kernel is explicitely GPLv2 or later, and the remaining three fourth
don't say anything. BTW: The FSF requires each file of a FSF project to contain an
explicit copyright notice, and this also solves the hijacking problem:
You simply take the e.g. ssl.c out of libssl, and state that it is under
the Apache license, and that's it. It's compatible to GPLv3, so can be
included in a GPLv3 distribution, and it by itself also stays under
Apache license. The hijacking is only a problem when you do it like Linus
and the other kernel hacker do it: Change the copyright notice on the
file. From a tit-for-tat point of view, this is not fair.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:22 UTC (Wed)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (1 responses)
nope. All GPLv2 is v2-only unless explicitely stated otherwise. Clause 9
look:
$ find t2/linux-source-2.6.12/ -type f | xargs grep GPL | grep v2.*later |
IOW: 126 instances of GPL-v2, 124 of them being v2-only.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:59 UTC (Thu)
by forthy (guest, #1525)
[Link]
Please learn to grep. The term used to declare GPL version 2 or later
is fixed, and it spells out as: I find a whooping 4631 files with exactly this text in
my /usr/src/linux directory. And the GPL v2 explicitely states that you
can choose any later license. If the author does not state any version,
you can choose whatever version you like (Section 9). Please read
the GPL! It's right in /usr/src/linux, just skipp below the comment from
Linus. The majority of the Linux kernel does not specify any version
(apart from your 124 files), Linus comment is just for himself (he chose
to use GPLv2 to redistribute; he's entitled to do that, it doesn't change
the state of the original work, since the GPL is very precise that you
get all the rights only from the original authors).
Posted Sep 28, 2006 5:11 UTC (Thu)
by walken (subscriber, #7089)
[Link] (2 responses)
> So whether the GPLv3 fulfills what the GPLv2 was "supposed to do in the
You are of course right about this - if the kernel developers want to use the GPLv2 license, it is of course their right to do so, and they do not have to justify themselves for that choice.
I also realise that some of the kernel developers seem to have strong feelings against the FSF, and might be disinclined to consider the GPLv3 for that reason. Which is fine too - you can just say you dont want to look at any new FSF license if that's how you feel.
However, the kernel developers *have* been making arguments against GPLv3 and I find these to be quite confusing. So since there has been some arguing, it's only natural that people will try to understand what you mean. In the message you were replying to, khim was arguing (quite convincingly, I think) that the GPLv3 does not do anything beyond what GPLv2 was supposed to do. You say the FSF's opinion of what GPLv2 is supposed to do is irrelevant - fine, but then, what is YOUR opinion of what GPLv2 is supposed to do ?
So far I've heard of the "GPLv3 would prevent tivo from using linux" issue. Linus has been arguing (actually, you did too: http://lwn.net/Articles/200628/) that it's a USE restriction and that GPLv2 did not have those - but that's incorrect, the restriction is only about DISTRIBUTION and GPLv2 already had some of this, i.e. microsoft can not "use" the linux TCP stack in their windows OS either. Or technically they'd be free to USE it internally (GPLv2 does not have any usage restrictions), but they could not DISTRIBUTE the result. If you really wanted a license without distribution restrictions, I think you'd just use BSD. So, in YOUR opinion, why are you happy with the distribution restrictions in GPLv2 but not those in GPLv3 ?
You've also been arguing that tivo should be free to lock down their software, so that you get the source but you can't recompile it and run the result on your tivo. You seem to think it's OK since if one wants to be able to run their modified code, they can just buy a general-purpose computer. Would you still feel that way if it somehow became impossible to buy a general-purpose computer with TV inputs and outputs ?
I'm just trying to understand your opinion...
Thanks,
Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:08 UTC (Thu)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (1 responses)
It still wouldn't have anything to do with the software license. It's not about the software, it's about the hardware and about laws that control the hardware.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 15:27 UTC (Thu)
by forthy (guest, #1525)
[Link]
I'm a "hardware" developer as job description. I really don't like
this "it's about hardware" talk people who apparently understand
absolutely nothing about hardware except that it comes in boxes talk that
way. "Hardware" today is typically 95% software, one or several
processors, memories, and some custom stuff which really is hardware in
the original sense (processors often are half-software as well, e.g.
microcode). All sane hardware developer move the complex stuff to
software, and an appliance like the TiVo definitely has a lot of complex
stuff in software. And today, even most digital "hardware" really is
created by compiling Verilog or VHDL descriptions (which is perfect
software, if you look at it) into a form that can be made as gates. Therefore, there can't be such a sharp distinction between "hardware"
and "software" as it used to be when hardware still was that
brick&mortar stuff (nails, screws, etc.). Just take a simple view:
It's
software when the copyright applies. When it doesn't, it's hardware. Most
what may appear to an outsider as hardware really is software which was
transformed into physically tangible stuff. But you wouldn't claim that a
CD full of programs is hardware, because it's phyically tangible, would
you? So stop telling us that the TiVo is a "hardware" issue.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:06 UTC (Tue)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (5 responses)
Everybody can have a bad day, I suppose.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:46 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (4 responses)
I can assure you that there is general unhappiness about the GPLv3 process in Linux kernel developer circles - and the FSF's happiness about attacking perceived detractors has a large influence on that unhappiness rarely becoming actual names.
It also does not help that RMS thinks that "Most of our community does not appreciate freedom" (link) and hence has intentionally created an undemocratic and closed process for the GPLv3.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:29 UTC (Tue)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (3 responses)
So I wish those "unhappy participants" would also come along; otherwise I see no need to mention them but to spread FUD about the process. It is weird to see Torvalds doing things like this.
As to democratic processes: come on, Ingo. If somebody accused Linus of "creating a kernel development process which is not democratic", what would you think? Stallman has been the "benevolent dictator" of the FSF since the beginning (even though is benevolence has not always been appreciated by everyone), now is not the time to complain.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:58 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (2 responses)
the big difference is: if you are unhappy with Linus you can fork the Linux codebase and try your luck. That keeps Linus honest and sharp every day. If he messes up, people will leave his project.
On the other hand the FSF licensing process cannot be "forked". What RMS decides goes into the GPLv3. No matter what the "Committees" do, or what the "comment submitters" do. There's no competitive pressure whatsoever to keep him honest or sharp.
Look at the RMS quotes i linked to: "Most of our community does not believe in free software". And the GPLv3 process very much reflects this belief of him: RMS does not trust the community. So he (and some of his more vocal supporters) should really not be surprised if the community does not trust him.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:16 UTC (Wed)
by Zack (guest, #37335)
[Link]
The same goes for GNU or any GPL licensed software.
>On the other hand the FSF licensing process cannot be "forked". What RMS decides goes into the GPLv3. No matter what the "Committees" do, or what the "comment submitters" do. There's no competitive pressure whatsoever to keep him honest or sharp.
There is competitive pressure. People will simply not use it. New projects will see the wisdom in Linus' approach an go GPLv2 only or another license.
>Look at the RMS quotes i linked to: "Most of our community does not believe in free software". And the GPLv3 process very much reflects this belief of him:
What rms says or believes is largely irrelevant within the context of the GPLv3 process. The main point there is that people expect him to listen and in the end produce a license that is pallatable to a large variety of interests and still defends the four software freedoms.
Faillure to produce such a license is self-limiting. People will simply not use it.
>RMS does not trust the community. So he (and some of his more vocal supporters) should really not be surprised if the community does not trust him.
Fortunately he made it so that there is no need for anyone to like him or even trust him. Or to put it another way; Larry McVoy seemed like a nice fellow. Actually, I still think he is rather charming. But I wouldn't want to rely on his software.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:47 UTC (Wed)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
From Stallman's point of view, using sometimes non-free software for convenience, preferring a more practical approach or even using the term "open source" are all signs of not appreciating freedom. The guy has been saying that for ages; it is written all over the FSF's web site, e.g. here or here.
Well, if anyone can say that, it is Stallman. He has been fighting the good fight for longer than many of us have been alive. You can choose to believe that he does not trust the community, or you can view him as a grandpa saying from his armchair: "you youngsters do not value the freedoms we earned at WWII".
Torvalds himself has repeatedly said that he values practical concerns above freedom; often he has only gone the freedom route when forced to. So have many kernel devs; so have you in these pages (when you said that breaking DRM could be seen in a bad light and it was not worth it). If you want to see that as mistrust, and burn the bridges, please do not do it; we all lose.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:43 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (4 responses)
These two groups of people (the Linux devs in general lead by Linus and the FSF) have disparaging difference of viewpoints.
The kernel developers care about creating the best kernel possible. They like the GPL because it requires the participants stay open and in combination with practical concernes it compels third parties to contribute code and praticipate in kernel development were otherwise with a BSD or similar non-copyleft license they would not.
FSF and RMS don't care so much about creating the best kernel possible or creating the best operating system possible. What they are concerned about is ensuring Freedom for users and developers for their software. They figure that it's a nessicary evil to sacrifice some freedom (ie. make the license copyleft) to protect the 'Four Freedoms'.
(0. The freedom to run the program as you wish. 1. The freedom to study the source code and change it to do what you wish. 2. The freedom to make copies and distribute them to others. 3. The freedom to publish modified versions.)
The concept of 'Freedom' is a entirely political issue in this way. Linus and friends don't give a crap about 'Freedom' in this sense. Their goal is purely practical.
Many times RMS would attempt to hijack the Linux kernel and related projects in pursuit of his political goals of 'Freedom' according to his own view point. This is against the wishes of many of the praticipants in Linux kernel development who have a desire or need to have the Linux kernel and related projects being used in a decidedly non-Free manner.
In other words Linus and friends have no problem with their software being used in a non-free manner as long as it remains open source.
This has created a high level of distrust for RMS and associated orginizations that share the same political viewpoint. Anything and everything that FSF and such will do will automaticly be treated by derision and mistrust by the Linux developers. They simply do not trust them and are not ever going to give them the benifit of the doubt.
It's all about the lack of trust. This is what all of this stuff is about. The Linux devs are going to do what they can to make sure that they remain free of FSF/RMS control and are going to err on the side of caution every time.
If the Linux devs trusted FSF and RMS then they would have no problem in praticipating and probably would embrace the GPLv3 rather quickly.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:49 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (3 responses)
You have hit the nail on the head. The act of Tivoisation does not
Is this a case of sacrificing essential freedom for a little temporary
Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:02 UTC (Wed)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (1 responses)
Note that the FSF does not believe that. It says it's fine to put free software in ROM in a device, leaving it impossible to install modifications. They claim to only care about symmetry of rights - of the manufacturer not reserving rights that the user does not receive.
I do not see where that symmetry is essential to the four freedoms.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:52 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link]
For what it's worth, I personally think signed software installable only
The "symmetry" that manufacturers should provide the ability to change
The difference is that in one case it might as well be a law of nature,
I think this point and "symmetry" are logically equivalent, or nearly so.
I guess that the FSF have considered this similarity between keyed but
I see what you're saying, and it would be justifiable on utterly pedantic
I will be very, very surprised if any of the Tivoisers switch from GPLv2
It is only in the long term that this might impose *any* cost on
Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:10 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Is this a case of sacrificing essential freedom for a little temporary
innovation? Yes. Unfortunatelly it also destructuve approach in the long run. 10-15 years from now linux kernel will either be relicensed under GPLv3 or similar license or it will be marginal OS kernel (like *BSD is now). But there are no rush. Yet.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:52 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (4 responses)
If it's "open", why cannot I see the discussions that happen within the "Committees"?
If it's "open", why cannot I vote on the result?
If it's "open", why is it that the only person who decides what goes into the license is the President of the FSF (Richard Stallman)?
Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:11 UTC (Wed)
by russell (guest, #10458)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:38 UTC (Wed)
by modernjazz (guest, #4185)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you want to assign motivations to bad behaviors, do keep in mind that
Personally, in this case I think that both parties are acting out of
Posted Sep 28, 2006 3:29 UTC (Thu)
by russell (guest, #10458)
[Link]
I can't see the logic behind there argument, which is strange because they are usually quite clear and direct. That makes me think it's more than just the license, and possibly a clash of personality/goals/values. It would clear things up quite a bit if they would make known how they would like the GPL changed instead of how they don't want it changed.
I don't buy for a minute the argument that GPLv2 doesn't need changing. They accept/tolerate binary only modules which the license doesn't.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:26 UTC (Wed)
by dmantione (guest, #4640)
[Link]
Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:25 UTC (Wed)
by anandsr21 (guest, #28562)
[Link] (1 responses)
This means that Linux cannot be used on any device that requires that the system remain faithful to the manufacturer as opposed to the buyer. Some example of these systems are
This means that proliferation of Linux into these spaces is going to stop. Doesn't matter how strong Linux's potential is currently. And these markets are huge.
Inspite of these problems we do need GPLv3 if we want open devices in the future. Without the GPLv3 there will be no DRM free future. But if we have it now when Linux in embedded spaces is not very strong we risk delaying the uptake of GPLv3.
It would have been nice if GPLv3 was delayed by about 5 years, when those manufacturers would have been so used to Linux that removing linux would not be an option.
I believe that Linus et al are trying to delay the GPLv3 drafting procedure for as long as they can to delay the GPLv3 hoping to get more manufacturers on board. I am quite sure that if this was introduced 3-4 years from now they would have agreed to it. They would have had first hand experience of the problems by then also ;-).
Posted Sep 27, 2006 12:18 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Without the glibc, the kernel is actually quite useless. You can always use uClibc I am sure there are other clones but the kernel people don't use them, and it will be difficult to validate them. Kernel people don't need them. TiVo's of the world are quite happy with uClibc - and it's used more often then glibc for such devices, actually... It would have been nice if GPLv3 was delayed by about 5 years, when those manufacturers would have been so used to Linux that removing linux would not be an option. Not really. We need GPLv3 version which is significally better then GPLv2 version - it does not happen overnight. If all versions of glibc starting from today will be released under "GPLv3 or above" it'll be few years before GPLv2 version will be useless piece of obsolete junk. So timing is perfect...
I participated in the discussion site for the GPL between draft 1 and draft 2. Why did I stopped? All the things I had to say were listened to and addressed. I became satisfied. How is this a closed discussion? I am not affiliated with the FSF or any other body. I am just Joe Sixpack Couch-potato.This is other thing that's bothering me...
GPLv3 is just "fixed" GPLv2
I say give them time. It took YEARS for people to understand and become comfortable with the original GPL. Heck, by the number of people who call RMS a "communist", it is clear there are many who still don't really understand it. Once Linus misses his favourite episode of 24 because his Tivo crashed from an easily fixable kernel bug that they will make it impossible to fix ("sorry sir, you'll have to wait for the next regularly scheduled update, which will be exactly 10 minutes after the final showing of that episode"), he will probably change his mind about the GPL3.GPLv3 is just "fixed" GPLv2
Ditto. If you'll look at what GPLv3 actually does today - it does not do anything beyond what GPLv2 (and GPLv1) was supposed to do.
is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
>the kernel developers wrote the other 7 million lines of code. Thus
what matters mostly is the Linux kernel contributors' view on this
issue.is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
>(and if you claim the FSF wrote the toolchain that's not true anymore
either, while the FSF has the copyrights assigned, both glibc and gcc was
largely written and is being written and maintained by non-FSF
people.)
What makes someone a GNU Hacker? Right, if he contributes to GNU
software.
If the GNU or Linux hacker is employed by any IT company or if he does it
in his spare time or if i believes in the words of Linus Torvalds or in
the words of the FSF doesn't make any difference. If he contributes to
Linux,
he is a Linux Hacker and the result will always be linux and if he
contribute to GNU he is a GNU Hacker and the result will always be
GNU.
So yes, GNU is much larger than Linux.
is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
What makes someone a Linux Hacker? Right, if he contributes to linux.
What makes someone a GNU Hacker? Right, if he contributes to GNU software.
is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
"all GPLv2 code is GPLv2 or later unless explicitely stated otherwise"is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
says that "If the Program <b>does not specify a version number</b> of this
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation." It means if you specify v2, it's v2 only.
wc -l
2
$ find t2/linux-source-2.6.12/ -type f | xargs grep GPL | grep v2.*only |
wc -l
0
$ find t2/linux-source-2.6.12/ -type f | xargs grep GPL | grep v2 | wc -l
126
is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Hi Ingo,is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
> FSF's view" is pretty much besides the point - the FSF only wrote the ~600
> lines GPL license, the kernel developers wrote the other 7 million lines of
> code. Thus what matters mostly is the Linux kernel contributors' view on
> this issue.
"Would you still feel that way if it somehow became impossible to buy a general-purpose computer with TV inputs and outputs ?"is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
It's just another demonstration that the smartest and brilliant engineer can also talk as an asshole.
Indeed. He can also spread FUD, like saying that a number of unnamed people who are "very unhappy" from the GPLv3 process or an (also unnamed) kernel engineer and his lawyer ask Linus (who AFAIK is no lawyer) what they can do "about the situation". Unnamed sources, general unhappiness, lawyers asking kernel hackers. Where has the world gone to.
Unnamed sources, general unhappiness, lawyers asking kernel hackers. Where has the world gone to.
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
I can assure you that there is general unhappiness about the GPLv3 process in Linux kernel developer circles
That is sad. The issue was about participants in the process, though.
the FSF's happiness about attacking perceived detractors has a large influence on that unhappiness rarely becoming actual names.
A lot of you were very brave and either signed the position paper or answered to the poll, standing up for what you believe. Some of you are taking the time to participate in the public discussion, which we the rest of the world appreciate a lot. Now the FSF have respectfully published their opinion; I have seen no attacks, at least not in public.
It also does not help that RMS thinks that "Most of our community does not appreciate freedom" (link) and hence has intentionally created an undemocratic and closed process for the GPLv3.
I'm very sorry that you think it is a closed process, that is quite detrimental to many communities. I hope the FSF can approach other kernel devs in time and let their opinions be heard.
If somebody accused Linus of "creating a kernel development process which is not democratic", what would you think? Stallman has been the "benevolent dictator" of the FSF since the beginning (even though is benevolence has not always been appreciated by everyone), now is not the time to complain.
Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
>the big difference is: if you are unhappy with Linus you can fork the Linux codebase and try your luck. That keeps Linus honest and sharp every day. If he messes up, people will leave his project.Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
Should he fail to defend the four freedoms, it's time to appoint another President of the FSF.
Believing in free software
What RMS decides goes into the GPLv3.
Correct, and what Linus decides goes into Linus' tree. Nobody forces you to use the GPL; if you want to write your own license, feel free to do it. It is true that you cannot fork the GPLv2; but it is not like you have to use the exact words there, you can write a license with less text than what you have contributed on this page, or use one of the thousands in existence.
Look at the RMS quotes i linked to: "Most of our community does not believe in free software".
That quote is not exact; you had it right before: "Most of our community does not appreciate freedom". But even the second version is not so offensive; it is just a terminological issue.
I think it's just a fundamental lack of trust on the part of Linus towards the FSF and RMS.Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
> The kernel developers care about creating the best kernel possible.Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom
> They like the GPL because it requires the participants stay open and
> in combination with practical concernes it compels third parties to
> contribute code and praticipate in kernel development were otherwise
> with a BSD or similar non-copyleft license they would not.
presently stop people from becoming kernel developers (the boxes in
question are inadequate -- all developers necessarily have something
better), therefore it doesn't alter the engineering result. To prevent
Tivoisation would likely deter Tivoisers from using Linux altogether, and
since some of them demonstrably do contribute to the 'innovation stream'
that is the Linux kernel development process, the core kernel maintainers
are loath to see them go.
innovation?
Only if you think this particular freedom (the ability to replace the software in a particular device) is an essential freedom.Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom
Good point, but I can't agree. Replacing the software you are running Laws of nature vs. treacherous computing
*is* freedom 1. It has never been an explicit point that you should be
able to do it on the same box because there are too many caveats: for
instance in the historical multi-user environment it is clear that the
amount of core in the box and the system administrator are laws of
nature. ROM is similar, the bonnet is welded shut. A box for which only
the maker has the keys is not.
by a service operator makes sense if a machine is provided as part of a
service, eg. cable TV or a telephone, just like you used to have to get
permission from the BOFH. Clearly you don't have the four freedoms here;
maybe that's okay but maybe *not* if the software is copylefted. On the
other hand if you've bought the box, you own it and your right to tinker
with it should extend to the ability to reflash it if that is technically
possible. And if it's running free software, that means the ability to
modify the source, recompile and reflash that. But that's just *my*
opinion, and has nothing whatever to do with copyright law and licences,
nor with the FSF position on the Four Freedoms.
the software if they have it themselves is not "essential" to the four
freedoms, but Tivoisation and ROM *both* violate freedoms 1 and 3 in
exactly the same way as not having the source does. You can't change and
improve the software you have.
and in the other it's something deliberately imposed by someone who is
supposed to be granting their users the four freedoms they had from
upstream.
Tivoisation unquestionably violates the *spirit* of the GPL, if not the
letter of version 2.
reinstallable software and ROM, and decided that a hardware limitation
like ROM is an acceptable exception to the four freedoms (in the same way
as, for instance, distributing free software binaries for computers which
aren't capable of running the compiler is acceptable), but actively using
a technical measure like TPM to restrict the ability of the user to do
what would otherwise be possible is not acceptable.
grounds to add equivalent restrictions forbidding free software on ROM or
on inadequate computers. But the FSF's goal, in the end, is not to be
utterly pedantic but to expand freedoms. The Tivo and similar devices do
the exact opposite; they actively work against the goal, and so a new
licence which stops them from doing that is called for.
software to GPLv3 software in ROM; they are vastly more likely simply to
stick with the GPLv2 version. Remember that anything ever released under
GPLv2 will always be usable under those terms. Only when upstream
increments to "version 3, or at your option, any later version" will the
GPLv3 "innovation stream" be closed to the poor deprived Tivoisers.
Tivoisers, and it's only an opportunity cost. The real pressure is peer
pressure; far more effective. So why you even mention ROM as an
alternative except to question the consistency of Eben Moglen (ha ha!) is
beyond me. You're sooooo pedantic ;-)
Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom
the GPL3 [open] process
GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?
Is it the GPLv3 that bugging the kernel developers or is it a lack of ego stroking?GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?
Ouch. Russell, those who contribute most to the kernel are well within GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?
their rights to speak their minds about licensing issues, because these
are issues that will affect the future trajectory of their life's work.
The concerns that the kernel developers raised apply even if the kernel
itself does not migrate to GPLv3, because there is much outside the kernel
that impacts the success of the kernel.
RMS has provided his own set of behaviors that might be causes for
concern. Think glibc, and KDE (http://lwn.net/2000/0907/bigpage.php3).
genuine care for the free software ecosystem---and it does not help to
demean such idealism. Instead of trying to shut down the discussion, one
should be promoting it.
Sorry, that was a bit blunt.GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?
An open proces does not mean it is a democracy. GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?
Actually GPLv3 wouldn't matter to Linus and comrades, but the problem is that Linux kernel depends on a lot of GPL programs including the glibc. Without the glibc, the kernel is actually quite useless. So the problem is that if GPLv3 comes into effect, Linux kernel even though is GPLv2 it will be for all practical purposes GPLv3. Because even though there is no compatibility problem due to the "v2 or later" clause, but the users can ask for the ability to modify the glibc. Which basically makes the system impossible to contain DRM. The only solution is to rewrite glibc with a different license. I am sure there are other clones but the kernel people don't use them, and it will be difficult to validate them.I think I understand it a little
1) media players and recorders, because of copywrite problems.
2) Mobile sets, because of bundling problems. They sell them at a loss and hope to recoupe it up by enabling features and locking you into their network.
I think I understand it a little