TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
Posted May 21, 2014 13:27 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post) by oldtomas
Parent article: TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
You are pointing to some old documents which fall into the first part of the story: after some time they have agreed with Stallman that “Open Source” and “Free Software” movements are fundamentally different. And yes, when people understood that “Open Source” and “Free Software” are not just two different names for the same movement but two different movements some people (Bruce Perens including) have choosen “Free Software” side.
I think by about 2000-2001 people have picked sides and after that they stick to their guns: “Open Source” camp went on to create tons of useful software and “Free Software” camp is still trying to convince them that all the success they enjoy is not worth anything if they are not ready to suffer in the name of “Free Software everywhere” utopia.
Posted May 21, 2014 14:34 UTC (Wed)
by Zack (guest, #37335)
[Link]
Thank god there exists such an unbiased an clear divide, how could we place any person in the correct camp and rile against them otherwise?
Posted May 21, 2014 20:06 UTC (Wed)
by gerdesj (subscriber, #5446)
[Link] (3 responses)
I just spent ages writing a carefully crafted reply. Forgot to Ctrl-A,S and lost it.
Wouldn't it be nice if a browser noticed text entry and saved it constantly, and after noticing it had lost connectivity, offered to put it back?
Anyway, to paraphrase myself, you forget that people continue to be born and many modern programmers were still deciding whether to shit, piss or crap themselves (sometimes I still do) when you personally picked a philosophical standpoint.
Not everyone picked a position in the early 2000s.
I'm over forty but many of my peers are increasingly younger and still wont get off my fucking lawn. Thankfully I'm always right.
Cheers
Posted May 21, 2014 20:36 UTC (Wed)
by geek (guest, #45074)
[Link]
Posted May 22, 2014 2:18 UTC (Thu)
by xanni (subscriber, #361)
[Link]
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/recover-forms-text-area-data...
Cheers,
Posted May 22, 2014 5:52 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
I talk about early 2000s separately because (as was correctly pointed out) “Open Source” movement was not initially created as movement separate from “Free Software” movement. Only when few years passed it become obvious that it's not just about name, it's fundamental difference in positions. At this point people who joined (or, in case of Bruce Perens, created) movement returned back to “Free Software” camp. In some sense they never left it, they perceived “Open Source” as a marketing gimmick till understanding that it become something more dawned. People who've picked sides after that point lived in a different world. World where “Free Software” and “Open Source” are different. World where FSF explains that Open Source “misses the point”. World where lines are drawn and positions are [relatively] clear.
Posted May 21, 2014 22:20 UTC (Wed)
by simlo (guest, #10866)
[Link] (26 responses)
The problem is that a lot of people is afraid of being idealistic. That smells too much of socialism and hippies. Therefore a lot of people who ought to at least partly agree with FSF turns back on them and even diretcly tries to work against them by for instance making BSD licensed alternatives to GPL'ed programs.
I place myself in between Open Source and Free Software:
I don't share Richard Stallman's goal of free software everywhere. I don't mind games etc. are non-free. I use the closed source NVIDIA driver. I have no trouble writing non-free software at work. But I dislike using Windows and try to use Open Source software as much as possible.
But I find it necesary for freedom in general that we move towards Open Source Software and especially open standeards for fundamental infrastructure and government.
To that end the minimalistic Open Source approach is not enough. The idea of open source code as in FreeBSD is not enough. Not because the license not strong enough, but because Open Source is not based on any strong idea, only a weak idea that open and shared source code is better than closed source code, is not sustainable. That is simply not enough to make a strong, vocal movement, which also can be heard in the public press, and be vocal about principles, not only another model of software development.
I got in trouble on a Danish webside by utterring my problem with an article claiming that Open Source was on the raise in local public administrations' CMS systems. A lot of the raise was due to Umbraco, which is Open Source by the definition, but made on top of ASP.NET. I questioned the validity of the Open Source stamp, because a town switching to Umbraco is not furthering Open Source as such the slightest. It will not matter as it only increase the dependence on highly proprietary software in the public administration.
I belive the Open Source movement needs to include some of the idea of freedom into their thinking to be sustainable. It is not at all needed to go to the extent of Richard Stallman, but some of his thinking needs to be included beyond the narrower Open Source definition. Include an ethetical principle, that a says that a Open Source any project should work towards increasing the use of Open Source in general. An Open Source project shall not increase the use of proprietary software.
Posted May 22, 2014 5:38 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (25 responses)
Why is that idea weak and/or unsustainable? The one benefit which Open Source gives you is so substantial that in many cases it's enough to offset all other offers. Sustainability: if you have source then you may support (personally or by bying someone's services) software indefinitely. With closed source you can not do that and increasingly you can not even change it if you need to (various anti-circumvention acs see to that). I think “own” vs “rent” analogy covers that distinction precisely enough. Of course. But you don't need users deserve freedom mantra of FSF to do that. It's not about whether one deserves freedom or not: government may decide that practical benefits outweight problems in some cases and it should not be condemned for that. But if the fact that any proprietary piece of software gives control to some company (foreign company in case of Danish government and ASP.NET) is highlighted enough then it should be enough. This situation is similar to GPS vs Galileo. Europe is ready to spend literally billions to built the system which is not, strictly speaking, needed because it's the only way to guarantee that US will not withdraw GPS as a punishment for some transgressions. Why proprietary software is not treated in the same vein? It should. If US will suddenly decide to put an embargo on export of Windows then suddenly Danish administration will not be able to expand their web site. This is always a real risk with proprietary software. One may deem it important enough to act or one may decide that it's minor enough to live with, but it's real. You don't need to be a “Free Software believer” to understand that.
Posted May 22, 2014 7:28 UTC (Thu)
by simlo (guest, #10866)
[Link] (24 responses)
A lot of that is in common with Free Software. You are certainly not going that far, but you add something to the basic Open Source principles, namely that Open Source add to the freedom of it's users. As I understand you, you also believe it is a bad idea to build on top of ASP.NET even though what you add on top is fully Open Source to the definition.
I wonder how your stand on including DRM in Firefox.
I find both things examples of where the basic Open Source principles are simply not enough. If you say that as long as you follow those principles everything is good, the movement will be subverted by coorporations merely abusing the Open Source term as marketing buzzword, and a way to get development done by for free.
What really saddens me is that some people from the BSD part Open Source put an efford into subverting Free Software and indirectly promoting proprietary software, by trying to make BSD licensed clones of GPL'ed programs, or supporting coorporations (Apple and Google) doing that to get rid of GPL.
If you disagree on how FSF maintains their software it is the fundamental idea of Open Source that you can clone it and make your own reposetory, as happened with X. The idea of a Open Source license is precisely that you do not need the permission of the copyright holder(s) to work on and redistribute the program.
I can see the idea of support LLVM due to technical arguments such as superior architecture and newer modern code, but to support it to get rid of GPL, is not just working against Free Software but against the whole Open Source movement because they are suddenly saying that GPL is not open source enough. I understand people who get payed for doing that, but volenteers in the FreeBSD project doing that, I can only explain it by extreme anti-ideology ideology turned against FSF and Richard Stallman in person.
Posted May 22, 2014 9:41 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (23 responses)
It's not idealism, it's pragmatism. Anyone who tried to read 20 years old Word documents knows that even current versions of Word are dealing poorly with them and often the only way to actually read them is to run MS Word for DOS in a DOSEMU. Which may not be an option available few years down the road. Thus it's quite a practical problem, not some theological discussion. It's not about “freedom of users”, it's about “vendor lock-in” and support. Frankly? I don't see what took so long. It's kind of no-brainer. Said DRM is supposed to be used for things you rent anyway (I'm not sure I've seen offers to sell you digital goods which you can then only use if you install that module) thus proprietary module which you rent for that purpose (you can not really buy proprietary software, you can only rent it) is fine, too. I have very different oponion about things which are sold to me with DRM. In that case it's more-or-less fraud (even if law may not call it as such). I mean: I've bought thing and only after the fact I find out that someone else will decide what and when I could do with it. That's no fair. But with Netflix I'm never in position to believe that I buy anything except for temporary access. It was true when they sent physical DVD disks back and forth and it's true today, when it's digital, too. It's not about “following principles”, it's all about “own” vs “rent”. Sometimes it's better to own things, sometimes it's cheaper (or more convenient) to rent them, but when people say to me that they will sell me an iPhone and then I find out that it's locked and could not be controlled by me then I become angry: it's fraud. My biggest beef is with marketing departments which rarely highlight that difference. Even as legal deparments spend huge amount of time and effort to explain that “this software is not sold, it's licensed to you under limited conditions” marketing guys turn around and start claiming they will sell it to you for cheap (or will discount). It's dishonest. Huh? What this has to do with anything? GPL is designed to make sure you could not give someone free software and then rent proprietary addons for it. Which is one approach to doing things. BSD/Apache license is explicitly created to allow that—and that's fine, too. If you value that ability then you naturally would work on LLVM which gives you such abilitiy. It's similar to GTK+ vs QT discussion (which happens nearby). GPL keeps all contributions available whether as BSD means that many things are lost over time (proprietary modules tend to be eventually abandoned and then usually noone can use them which means that all that effort is just wasted), but if the amount of work which remains in the “Open Source” core is still larger than GPLed alternative then why not? It's still a good trade-off.
Posted May 24, 2014 10:07 UTC (Sat)
by simlo (guest, #10866)
[Link] (22 responses)
As I accept using Adobes flashplugin already I can hardly argue that DRM plugin for videostreaming is all that bad, but I do oppose it as DRM is downright stupid, and I think an Open Source project should oppose it.
I am not against the BSD license and not against LLVM, but I am saddened the movement among some people in the BSD camp spending a lot of efford replacing GPL'ed components with BSD licensed components just because they are GPL. That is not a constructive behaviour.
To support LLVM in the BSD camp because they want to get rid of a GPLv3 compiler in their distribution, and not because LLVM is a technical better compiler, I simply can not understand from rational and practical arguments. The GPL is isolated to the compiler itself, not the whole distribution. The v3 requirements against tivolization does not have any practical effect, as a compiler is not put into an embedded device anyway.
As for "freedom of users", rather than "freedom of developers" I have two reasons why you should reconsider it:
1) The freedom to update your device after a security bug. Right now a lot of devices are open to the Hartbleed Bug, but their owner can not update them, and the vendors do not care. If OpenSSL was distributed under LGPLv3, the vendors would have to make a manual of how to update the library.
2) Freedom to move to another OS and architecture. If you rely on a closed source component, you can't do that. If you choose a an OS or architecture not supported by the DRM module, you can't see your movies. You are forced to stay at one of the major OS and architecture combinations for it to work.
Posted May 24, 2014 19:34 UTC (Sat)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
I don't think that is actually true anymore. Compilers are used on many devices other than developer workstations such as part of a JIT or part of a GPU driver, both of which can be relevant on boot locked machines. GCC is also very old and the project was hesitant to put in the abstraction layers needed for it to integrate with such systems which are likely proprietary.
Posted May 24, 2014 19:44 UTC (Sat)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (20 responses)
> To support LLVM in the BSD camp because they want to get rid of a GPLv3
I think you should have followed LLVM v GPL discussion at the time FreeBSD
LLVM v GPLv3 questions have not been decided in court (if ever), so any responsible dev or business should stay away from it.
So businesses are rightfully justified in being fearful of GPLv3-covered
Posted May 24, 2014 21:42 UTC (Sat)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (15 responses)
That is completely false. All the libraries that are part of the compiler have special exceptions which allow them to be used in proprietary programs as a result of being built with GCC/binutils. In fact, virtually every Linux distribution comes with a compiler which is GPLv3 licensed (GCC 4.2 is very old now), and proprietary programs created with these compilers are distributed every single day.
If that weren't the case then no one could have created binaries with older versions of GCC either: there's no significant difference in the amount of "viral-ness" in this respect between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
There are zero licensing restrictions on binaries created with any version of GCC, including the latest ones, unless you do something very unusual like modify GCC's internal libraries.
Posted May 24, 2014 22:21 UTC (Sat)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (14 responses)
Yes, we are aware of it:
Also:
Posted May 24, 2014 23:47 UTC (Sat)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (13 responses)
I have no opinion on whether anonymous "people" want to "get involved" or not, or what they feel about "clear separation between GPL and BSD" (is there any other sort of separation? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean).
I'm commenting your 100% wrong assertion that "The gcc-compiled binaries can not be licensed freely under any licence you like". That is a factually incorrect statement.
The FSF (which as you're probably aware is the sole copyright owner for GCC and as such is the only entity with standing to initiate legal action for copyright infringement) has placed a legally binding exemption to the GPL into the software. They have further provided a "simple English" statement as to what they believe and intend the exemption to mean. What you think it means, or I think it means, or even what lawyers or the courts think it means is totally irrelevant unless the FSF initiates a legal action, and they've made clear that they don't consider compiling programs with GCC and distributing them under a license which is not compatible with the GPL (any version) to be infringement of GCC's copyright.
And if you don't trust me then note that, as I pointed out, companies with far more to lose, and with some of the most savvy and risk-averse legal teams around, have no problem distributing proprietary programs built with GCC.
> Finally, GCC is GPL version 3 licensed, which requires developers who
This is clearly true, and in fact actually intended and expected. That's the entire point of HAVING the GPL, regardless of version: this objection was just as true with the GPLv2; where were all the complaints then? Oh yes, it wasn't until the increased patent protections were added in GPLv3 that "people" seemed to get upset...
However, although that is a true statement it is absolutely irrelevant for this discussion.
Posted May 25, 2014 1:37 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (3 responses)
Yes, sure. I'll show you. Right. It's Ok to distribute a program linked to libstdc++.so because of Runtime Library Exception. It says quite clearly that You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. But what about libstdc++.so itself? When you distribute it you distribute something build not from combination of Runtime Library and Independent Modules, but something built solely from sources of the Runtime Library! Exception is not in play and pure GPL applies. Which, as we all know, includes anti-Tivozation clause. Which means that BSD OS with libstdc++.so included is affected by GPLv3: one must provide a way to replace libstdc++.so on the device because that's requirement of GPLv3 and Runtime Library Exception is not in play. Does it look like The GPL is isolated to the compiler itself, not the whole distribution? I think not. One could cope with this problem by refusing to provide libstdc++.so (that's how Android solves this problem, e.g.), but it's clearly simpler and more robust to not ship libdtc++ at all and use libc++. Which implies LLVM.
Posted May 26, 2014 14:41 UTC (Mon)
by andza (guest, #72692)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 26, 2014 22:45 UTC (Mon)
by simlo (guest, #10866)
[Link]
I understand that FSF want to avoid that people lock down devices with crypto. But I have a problem with mandating to document a way to update the GPLv3 parts:
A typical practice within embedded is to make a complete filesystem image including GPL'ed and non-GPL'ed parts and mount it read-only. The only way to update the system is to update the full image, through a very specific upload procedure, for instance via a USB stick or via ftp.
Or the user shall be able to build his own image and from the bits already on the device + the newly build libstdc++.so.
Neither solution are practical for the device manufactures - which might be some small company making a small Linux device, it does not have to be a big phone company.
I would prefer that FSF softenes the language, such that it shall be forbidden to make obstacles to updating GPL parts by using crypto or checksums to avoid booting the modified software, but not mandating that there should be an manual for how to update it.
PS. I work with embedded Linux, but it does not fall under "User Products", so I am not worried about it.
Posted May 27, 2014 11:59 UTC (Tue)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
You are arguing a straw-man here. I made no comments about "whole distributions". Yes, it's true that even though GCC's license doesn't apply to your binary that doesn't mean you can distribute libstdc++.so itself without obeying its licensing restrictions, which are GPLv3. But, that has no relationship to what the original poster claimed, and what I was replying to, which was:
> The gcc-compiled binaries can not be licensed freely under any licence
However, regarding your issue you have these options: either don't distribute libstdc++.so yourself and rely on the distribution to provide it (that's what virtually all GNU/Linux proprietary programs do), or distribute libstdc++.so yourself and obey the licensing restrictions for that library (which still do not apply to your binary, and are not more onerous than GPLv2 except in very specific circumstances where things like TiVo-ization come into play), or don't distribute libstdc++.so as an independent library (that is, statically link libstdc++.a).
Posted May 25, 2014 8:13 UTC (Sun)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (8 responses)
> This is clearly true, and in fact actually intended and expected. That's
Let me ask this question.
Additional Ref:
Proprietary loadable kernel modules
Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
Posted May 25, 2014 9:29 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (4 responses)
Because GCC Runtime Library Exception is structured that way. You can create a proprietary extension for GCC, but then you'll be forced to replace libgcc and libstdc++ with something else. Doable, but… switching to LLVM is easier.
Posted May 25, 2014 10:14 UTC (Sun)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (3 responses)
You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by
Why is the GPL requirement for source code availability enforced in case of
Posted May 25, 2014 13:06 UTC (Sun)
by simlo (guest, #10866)
[Link] (2 responses)
GPLv2 does not allow distribution of Linux kernel modules along with the kernel. But I am free to download what ever code and load into the kernel on my machine, but if I give my machine away I would violate GPL. But due to the kernel community's weaker interpretation it is not enforced.
Posted May 25, 2014 14:36 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
Libraries themselves are GPLv3+, not LGPLv3+ (there are some LGPLv3+ libraries in package, but the main ones: ligcc and libstdc++—are GPLv3+). And since bits and pieces are embedded into the executable without this exception you'll not be able to build anything except for GPLv3+ programs. As I've said before: technically speaking, propriatery exceptions are not forbidden—but you could only use them to compile GPLv3+ programs. There are FAQ which explain how that works in more details.
Posted May 27, 2014 12:27 UTC (Tue)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
If you don't use proprietary extensions to GCC when you create your binary then the program is not subject to the GPL, as we've been discussing.
And yes, one of the main goals of the exception clause (the reason it's so complicated) is that the FSF wants to specifically not allow (or at least make infeasible) using proprietary extensions with GCC. If you want to add proprietary extensions to your compiler then by all means, you should be using LLVM. I believe this is a loss for free software, but obviously others disagree.
Posted May 27, 2014 12:20 UTC (Tue)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (2 responses)
The shortest answer is, because the FSF and Linus interpret things differently. That's why my previous point about licensing only mattering if someone actually takes legal action is important.
Although the Linux kernel has thousands of copyright holders, with (sometimes wildly) diverging views on how the GPL applies to proprietary modules (for example, there are kernel developers who _do_ believe that all kernel modules must be distributed under the GPL), all Linux copyright holders seem content to go along with Linus's interpretation, which is (as I understand it) that if your kernel module only uses a particular set of well-defined APIs, then it is actually not a derived work of the kernel and so the GPL (as a copyright license) cannot legally apply to it.
If the FSF were the copyright holder to the Linux kernel it's likely that they'd interpret this differently and either completely disallow proprietary modules or else feel compelled to publish a specific, legal exception clause allowing them in particular situations, as they do with GCC's libraries.
Posted May 27, 2014 12:57 UTC (Tue)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (1 responses)
Considering the above w/r to "uses a particular set of well-defined APIs",
Ref:
Posted May 27, 2014 13:16 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Linus and other developers have always stated that the kernel GPL does NOT cross into userspace.
Posted May 26, 2014 21:49 UTC (Mon)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link] (3 responses)
You're wrong.
Posted May 27, 2014 1:11 UTC (Tue)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 27, 2014 8:26 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 27, 2014 10:42 UTC (Tue)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
Aren't you saying the same thing I am saying, that if you include GPLv3 software on a firmware image that the hardware must then allow for user-created firmware images to be installed where at least the GPLv3 software may be modified in that image.
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
Jon
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
Andrew
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
Anyway, to paraphrase myself, you forget that people continue to be born and many modern programmers were still deciding whether to shit, piss or crap themselves (sometimes I still do) when you personally picked a philosophical standpoint.
Not everyone picked a position in the early 2000s.TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
Not because the license not strong enough, but because Open Source is not based on any strong idea, only a weak idea that open and shared source code is better than closed source code, is not sustainable.
But I find it necesary for freedom in general that we move towards Open Source Software and especially open standeards for fundamental infrastructure and government.
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
It is nice to hear that you share some of the idealism.
You are certainly not going that far, but you add something to the basic Open Source principles, namely that Open Source add to the freedom of it's users.
I wonder how your stand on including DRM in Firefox.
If you say that as long as you follow those principles everything is good, the movement will be subverted by coorporations merely abusing the Open Source term as marketing buzzword, and a way to get development done by for free.
I can see the idea of support LLVM due to technical arguments such as superior architecture and newer modern code, but to support it to get rid of GPL, is not just working against Free Software but against the whole Open Source movement because they are suddenly saying that GPL is not open source enough.
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
> the movement among some people in the BSD camp spending a lot of efford
> replacing GPL'ed components with BSD licensed components just because
> they are GPL. That is not a constructive behaviour.
> compiler in their distribution, and not because LLVM is a technical
> better compiler, I simply can not understand from rational and practical
> arguments. The GPL is isolated to the compiler itself, not the whole
> distribution.
adopted LLVM.
The reasons for dropping gcc were:
- gcc switched to GPLv3 licence, which is more restrictive (gcc-4.2 was
the last compiler with GPLv2).
The gcc-compiled binaries can not be licensed freely under any licence
you like (binaries will be linked against libraries which are part of
the compiler, and the viral nature of GPLv3 means that the resulting
programs have to be licensed under GPLv3).
- clang has more modular architecture that is easier to develop and extend
- clang has better debugging and diagnostics, both for users and compiler
devs
- clang has fewer extensions (and even these could be less necessary).
Gcc has accumulated many "extensions" - many were/are there for a reason,
many can be ignored or turned off (however, doing so breaks various
programs either when building or running)
- also, the libstdc++ library that is GPLv3 licenced was removed and
replaced
Even if so, in which court ? Of which jurisdiction?
Even if one jurisdiction says something it doesn't mean all other countries would agree.
So the only answer a lawyer can give you is "nobody knows".
code and the output of GPLv3-covered compilers (like gcc).
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
> you like (binaries will be linked against libraries which are part of
> the compiler, and the viral nature of GPLv3 means that the resulting
> programs have to be licensed under GPLv3).
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
> which allow them to be used in proprietary programs as a result of being
> built with GCC/binutils.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
Despite that (subject to interpretation by lawyers - see my previous post) many people do not want to get involved. They want to have a clear separation between GPL and BSD (or others).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang
"Finally, GCC is GPL version 3 licensed, which requires developers who distribute extensions for (or modified versions of) GCC to make their source code available, whereas LLVM has a BSD-like license[10] which permits including the source into proprietary software."
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
> distribute extensions for (or modified versions of) GCC to make their
> source code available
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
I have no opinion on whether anonymous "people" want to "get involved" or not, or what they feel about "clear separation between GPL and BSD" (is there any other sort of separation? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean).
What you think it means, or I think it means, or even what lawyers or the courts think it means is totally irrelevant unless the FSF initiates a legal action, and they've made clear that they don't consider compiling programs with GCC and distributing them under a license which is not compatible with the GPL (any version) to be infringement of GCC's copyright.
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
Now if the user wants to update libstdc++.so, either some kind of ftp, scp access have to be given to the user, the system needs to be mounted rw. The hardware might even not support that.
The way "device hackers" would be able to update it as they would for a non-crypted GPLv2 device, but not normal persons.
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
> not the whole distribution? I think not.
> you like (binaries will be linked against libraries which are part of
> the compiler, and the viral nature of GPLv3 means that the resulting
> programs have to be licensed under GPLv3).
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
> distribute extensions for (or modified versions of) GCC to make their
> source code available
> the entire point of HAVING the GPL, regardless of version: this
> objection was just as true with the GPLv2; ...
What is the difference, from GPL point of view, between a proprietary
module added to GPLv2-licensed Linux kernel, and an extension added to
GPLv2/v3-licensed gcc, both compiled with GPLv2/v3-licensed gcc ?
My understanding is that both are "extensions". Then why they are treated
differently ?
http://lwn.net/Articles/434491/
http://lwn.net/Articles/434318/
...
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
What is the difference, from GPL point of view, between a proprietary module added to GPLv2-licensed Linux kernel, and an extension added to GPLv2/v3-licensed gcc, both compiled with GPLv2/v3-licensed gcc ? My understanding is that both are "extensions". Then why they are treated differently ?
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
...
1. Grant of Additional Permission.
combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such
propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that
all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You
may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice,
consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
...
a gcc extension but not close-source proprietary kernel module ?
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
> module added to GPLv2-licensed Linux kernel, and an extension added to
> GPLv2/v3-licensed gcc, both compiled with GPLv2/v3-licensed gcc ?
> My understanding is that both are "extensions". Then why they are treated
> differently ?
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
is then, by analogy, Google Android's Bionic libc free from violating Linux
kernel's GPLv2 ?
http://lwn.net/Articles/434318/
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
That's very strange fantasy but some legal departments imagine that it's true and forbid use of GPLv3 software on that basis. You must be able to replace GPLv3 parts of the image, but it says nothing about the rest. Even more, GPLv3 quite explicitly says access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network. If network in question whitelists all versions of binaries which could be used on it (presumably for security reasons) then it's Ok as far as GPLv3 is concerned.
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)
TechView: Linus Torvalds, Inventor of Linux (Huffington Post)