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

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

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:39 UTC (Wed) by NedLudd (guest, #37615)
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Any license that requires a lawyer to *fully* understand it makes me quite sad.....when you call something free and place all sorts of restrictions on it...call me a jerk for liking the bsd license.....but i believe that code can stand on its own merit........without forcing people......

Ned

to post comments

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

Posted Sep 27, 2006 8:59 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (5 responses)

You don't need a lawyer. The GPL contains, like the CC licenses, a preamble, which states everything you, as layman, ever need to know: "Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things."

Read this, and understand it. This is just one sentence, and it contains everything in a nutshell. The remaining GPL is just making things explicit for lawyers; it's not obvious that this is really necessary everywhere (at least in Germany, the intention of a license is more important than the actual wording - i.e. in Germany, GPLv2 code couldn't be legally TiVoized, anyway, because TiVoizing already violates the "you can change the software" intention). If you fail to understand this single sentence, I can't help you. View this sentence as the requirements for the GPL, and the rest as the implementation - lawyers are like computers, they don't work on requirements, they need a full codified license.

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

Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:25 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (4 responses)

I am not a lawyer, let alone a German lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that one would find in "you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs" a requirement that you be able to install the changed software in a particular device and have that device be able to do the same things as before and lie about its identity to services it uses.

I tend to think they would read it on its face, which says you can change the software, not the device, and use its pieces in new software. Since copyright covers the right to modify the software, it makes sense to interpret that freedom as giving you the right to make such modifications, which you would not otherwise have. Since copyright does not cover the use of the software in a particular device, it makes sense to not interpret that freedom as having any connection with the device that happens to have been the distribution medium.

Remember that last bit - the only reason the device comes in to this is that it is the distribution medium for the software. Your ability to run software on that device is wholly outside the sphere of copyright and wholly incidental to what is being licensed. So I consider it unlikely that GPLv2 would be read as you suggest, even in Germany.

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

Posted Sep 28, 2006 7:43 UTC (Thu) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] (2 responses)

In Europe, legal agreements assume good faith between two parties. In the
US, legal texts assume bad faith between two parties.

One of the consequences is, that, as the poster says, in Europe it is
very normal that jurisprudention is spoken to the spirit of a license
text, and not to the letter of it.

I.e. in a hypothetical court case you could claim it was the intention of
the text to allow you to run modified software. A judge should then
investigate the truth of this matter and would for example read Stalman's
texts about it.

If the judge agrees the intention was to say you had to be able to run
modified software and definately can rule that a Tivo device violates the
license.

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

Posted Sep 29, 2006 1:09 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

Hmm. Well, wouldn't the fact that other people who used the license (like Linus and the other kernel developers) said that their intentions were different also have an impact? That is, wouldn't it be the intentions of the person choosing to apply it to her software that mattered, rather than the intentions of the author of the license?

Again, IANAL, and we're talking deeply speculatively here...

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

Posted Sep 29, 2006 12:30 UTC (Fri) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]

Sure, Torvalds intentions will propably be the most important in such a
situation.

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

Posted Oct 6, 2006 8:28 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I find it hard to comprehend your mental problems here ;-). If you buy a TiVo, you get a software that is specifically tailored to the device you bought - it's a Linux system ported to the TiVo hardware. Unchanged, it only runs on said TiVo hardware, slightly changed, it runs nowhere at all. It seems to be obvious to me that "change the software" for a device that has hardware and software means to change it to run on said hardware. You bought them as one piece.

The four freedoms allow you to change the software that comes as part of the device - and for me, it is obvious that this means to change the software to run on the same device again. It is the device that came with the copyrighted software, so the device maker has to follow the terms of the license. Your words sound as if there was no relation between Linux and the TiVo device.

I've no problem with GPL software put into a ROM, as long as the ROM is in a socket or easy to solder out for replacement. I would also not have a problem with the TiVo if it was feasible to replace the TPM with one where you know the key, or render it inactive by replacing some boot firmware (similar to the Xbox mods). The only requirement I see from the GPL and its spirit is that the manufacturer must provide instructions how to do that (mod the device, exchange the ROM or TPM).

One argument I've heard is that the TiVo is rather pathetic hardware, and you really don't want to run anything on it. This might be true for this special case, but look at other cases. The PS3 for example is very interesting hardware. Sony could do the same with the PS3 Linux what TiVo did, Sony is no more trustworthy (remember the Sony/BMG rootkit?), and the PS3 certainly contains the necessary DRM stuff. Now this would be a completely different story. I'm quite sure the free software world would not stop tinkering with that PS3 until they've managed to run their own Linux version - where possible, they would probably go to court, as well.

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

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:17 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

Legalese is sort of a programming language that uses english syntax.

It's not that it takes a lawyer to understand it, but it takes a fair amount of training to properly learn to say exactly what you mean, understand exactly what is said, and eliminate all ambiguities and thus potential misunderstandings.

Legalese attempts to eliminate all ambiguities in a document; it uses well-defined terms that do not change in meaning, much like a programming language. It uses also tends to use formal logic, much like programming languages.

Heh. Legalese just pre-initialize english variables. :)

Why Compiled Legalese is Hard to Understand

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:54 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

One of the big problems with the Legalese language is that it has many many overloaded operators. While a document has a large predefined "static" region, many of these static variables may become overloaded again by how they are associated with other static variables. This requires that the document has to use a multi-pass compiler/interpreter(eg lawyer) many of which have their own predefined localized definitions. You will need to shop around for a lawyer that meets your needs.

Due to the fact that you can get multiple different executables from legalize depending on where it is compiled (state, county, municipality, region, territory, etc), what is compiling it, and what versions of the legalize pre-pre-definitions they are going to use. THis then requires the OS (eg society) to have post compile Validation programs (aka judges) that will make a ruling of whether the compiled version you were going to run is actually valid. You of course can call an exception to this Validation program and get another program to confirm or deny if your executable is valid. Eventually the OS's Master Validation program (Supreme Court) may have to rule on which Validation program was correct if any.

After you have a Valid Legalese program, you will find that its version is only valid on that OS until a system patch breaks it causing it to be revalidated, or that moving it to another CPU running the same OS may cause the entire cycle to be restarted.

None of this is to be interpreted that I am for changing the current system with its multiple checks and balances. The fact is that each OS is running over a very large cluster with multiple CPU's that each have their own hardware layout and do not work well with one another at all times.