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 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.

to post comments

This is other thing that's bothering me...

Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:15 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (11 responses)

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.

GPLv3 is just "fixed" GPLv2

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.

Remember ?

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...

GPLv3 is just "fixed" GPLv2

Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:32 UTC (Tue) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link]

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.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:28 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (8 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.

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.)

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:08 UTC (Wed) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] (1 responses)

>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.)

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.
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?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 21:54 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

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.

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.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

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.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:22 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (1 responses)

"all GPLv2 code is GPLv2 or later unless explicitely stated otherwise"

nope. All GPLv2 is v2-only unless explicitely stated otherwise. Clause 9
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.

look:

IOW: 126 instances of GPL-v2, 124 of them being v2-only.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

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:

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.

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).

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 5:11 UTC (Thu) by walken (subscriber, #7089) [Link] (2 responses)

Hi Ingo,

> 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.

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,

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:08 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

"Would you still feel that way if it somehow became impossible to buy a general-purpose computer with TV inputs and outputs ?"

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.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

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.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:06 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (5 responses)

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.

Everybody can have a bad day, I suppose.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:46 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (4 responses)

Unnamed sources, general unhappiness, lawyers asking kernel hackers. Where has the world gone to.

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.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:29 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (3 responses)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:58 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (2 responses)

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.

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.

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

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:16 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>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.

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.
Should he fail to defend the four freedoms, it's time to appoint another President of the FSF.

>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.

Believing in free software

Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:47 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

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.

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.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:43 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (4 responses)

I think it's just a fundamental lack of trust on the part of Linus towards the FSF and RMS.

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.

Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom

Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:49 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (3 responses)

> 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.

You have hit the nail on the head. The act of Tivoisation does 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.

Is this a case of sacrificing essential freedom for a little temporary
innovation?

Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom

Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:02 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

Only if you think this particular freedom (the ability to replace the software in a particular device) is an essential freedom.

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.

Laws of nature vs. treacherous computing

Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:52 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

Good point, but I can't agree. Replacing the software you are running
*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.

For what it's worth, I personally think signed software installable only
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 "symmetry" that manufacturers should provide the ability to change
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.

The difference is that in one case it might as well be a law of nature,
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.

I think this point and "symmetry" are logically equivalent, or nearly so.
Tivoisation unquestionably violates the *spirit* of the GPL, if not the
letter of version 2.

I guess that the FSF have considered this similarity between keyed but
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.

I see what you're saying, and it would be justifiable on utterly pedantic
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.

I will be very, very surprised if any of the Tivoisers switch from GPLv2
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.

It is only in the long term that this might impose *any* cost on
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

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.

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:52 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (4 responses)

the GPL3 [open] process

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)?

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:11 UTC (Wed) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link] (2 responses)

Is it the GPLv3 that bugging the kernel developers or is it a lack of ego stroking?

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:38 UTC (Wed) by modernjazz (guest, #4185) [Link] (1 responses)

Ouch. Russell, those who contribute most to the kernel are well within
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.

If you want to assign motivations to bad behaviors, do keep in mind that
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).

Personally, in this case I think that both parties are acting out of
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.

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 3:29 UTC (Thu) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link]

Sorry, that was a bit blunt.

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.

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:26 UTC (Wed) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]

An open proces does not mean it is a democracy.

I think I understand it a little

Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:25 UTC (Wed) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link] (1 responses)

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.

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
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.

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 ;-).

I think I understand it a little

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...