Submitted by A group of 29 Linux kernel developers have recently come together and produced a position statement on GPLv3 [.pdf|.txt] explaining why they don’t like the GPLv3. “The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence proposal. […] We foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely.” They’ve also run a GPLv3 poll.
We need Bill Murray chanting it – what movie was that?
Anyway, even if you had the majority of linux developers wanting to go to GPL v3, you would basically have chaos for 2 or more years ripping out systems, and rewriting code.
So this is all posturing by Linus and others because they know they really can’t do anything about the Linux license unless they want to put Linux at a disadvantage for years. Oh, and not only that, but you would probably see forks by Google, IBM, and other major players that depend on Linux.
You’re right, it really doesn’t matter. Linux can only change it’s license if EVERY code contributor since 1991 agreed to change the licence. It simply won’t happen.
And I like GPLv3.
Not really. Individual modules and files could be licensed GPL2 or greater. The kernel would still be GPL2 since “GPL2” plus “GPL2 or greater” is equal to “GPL2′, but if after a year or so, 95% of the kernel were GPL2 or greater, then the remaining 5% code could be rewritten.
The key thing to note is that, if the poll is accurate, it doesn’t look as though the kernel would change licenses even if there was a concerted effort to do so.
“then the remaining 5% code could be rewritten”
5% of the current Linux codebase is A LOT of code.
would probably see forks
What makes you think you won’t see a fork if the kernel does NOT go to v3?
Alan Cox was very vocal about v3! Maybe he will be the new crusader that takes on the v3 task….okay maybe not.
Strange that Linus can go in and change “v2 or later” into what he wants it to say without asking anyone or getting anyones permission.
Linus has been against v3 for years (before there was a v3) so if we are accusing people of having their mind made up we need to include him also.
fork,fork,fork….
Edited 2006-09-23 01:22
What makes you think you won’t see a fork if the kernel does NOT go to v3?
Trying reading. I didn’t say there wouldn’t be forks.
Strange that Linus can go in and change “v2 or later” into what he wants it to say without asking anyone or getting anyones permission.
If he’s changing other people’s individual copyrights then he’s got bigger problems than GPL v3.
Linus has been against v3 for years (before there was a v3) so if we are accusing people of having their mind made up we need to include him also.
Has nothing to do with my comment.
Alan Cox was very vocal about v3! Maybe he will be the new crusader that takes on the v3 task….okay maybe not.
Well, on the kernel developer poll he rates v3 a -2 (very bad). So if “take on” means destroy you may be right.
Strange that Linus can go in and change “v2 or later” into what he wants it to say without asking anyone or getting anyones permission.
Unless mistaken, it has been like that way for a while. A really quick survey of the code does show up some driver files have the “v2 or later” clause, but not core files.
Linus has been against v3 for years (before there was a v3)[…]
I believe he was rather against relinquishing his control over the licence to an external entity… Think about it. With the “v2 or later” clause, the user can choose the licence among a subset. However, nobody cannot predict the future, including the copyright owner(s) using the licence. Thus, they cannot know if they are going to agree with a later version of a licence.
Let’s pretend that RMS’ head got trampled by an herd of gnus. After recovering from his injuries, he decides to add a clause in GPLv8, stating something in the lines of: the ownership of the Program covered by this licence is given to the FSF, then begin to use programs released with the “later” clause… Hey, I have no doubt on the good intentions of the FSF, but I’m sure many developers wouldn’t be happy. An extreme example (with a legal impossibility, I might add), but it clearly shows the implications of using a “later” clause.
Since Linus and many core developers are not satisfied by the GPLv3, they’ve only made a wise decision by removing the “later” part. It would have been problematic to contact every copyright owner, had they been favourable with the revision. Still, it would be a minor inconvenience, next to dealing with something they disapprove. An happy developer is a productive developer.
Personally, I couldn’t care less of the licence, since I don’t need one for boycotting DRM’d content.
Strange that Linus can go in and change “v2 or later” into what he wants it to say without asking anyone or getting anyones permission.
Hasn’t it always been like that? If Linus wrote the original code and license, then of course he is entitled to make the license say whatever he wants. Only now that there is tons of other code contributed by other people would he have to obtain permission.
Strange that Linus can go in and change “v2 or later” into what he wants it to say without asking anyone or getting anyones permission.
If, as you imply, Linus does not have the right to change the kernel license willy nilly, then certainly RMS does not have that right either.
RMS is a power freak in his dotage who thrives on controversy.
Strange that Linus can go in and change “v2 or later” into what he wants it to say without asking anyone or getting anyones permission.
That’s just a plain lie, since most of the code he changed to not have “v2 or later” was written by himself and he asked the other copyright holders for the parts that got changed. Anyway a great part of the code under the GPL 2 only, has been written after he decided to use that license. Perhaps you should check the mailinglist arkchives before talking nonsens.
Actually the removal of the “v2 or later” clause shows great foresight of Linus, and I’m rather pussled that not more projects have done the same. It’s a simple guaranty that RMS and FSF not change the license of your code without your say. And by adding clauses to the license the kernel developers don’t agree with, it shows that Linus got it right from the start.
Edited 2006-09-23 06:48
“What makes you think you won’t see a fork if the kernel does NOT go to v3?”
Because the kernel is GPLv2 _only_, you can’t change the license to v3 without _every_ people that ever contributed to it giving their explicit permission*.
The only reason the likes of Red Hat or Novell could fork gcc, for example, is because it already is under a “v2 or later” clause. The FSF has full copyright over GCC, so they can change the license to “v3 only”. In that case, the previous “v2 or later” version could turn into a fork.
* I know, some pieces of the kernel are under a “v2 or later” license.
>so they can change the license to “v3 only”.
The FSF will change from “GPLv2 or later” to “GPLv3 or later” like they switched from “GPLv1 or later” to “GPLv2 or later”.
Remember Novell and Redhat are part of the discussion committee and i haven’t hear anything negative from them so i think they are quite happy with the progress. Also remember that Novel and RedHat are maintainer of GPL projects which will have a great profit from GPLv3 (compatibility to licenses like the Apache license, for more infos see: http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15942&comment_id=164914 )
I agree with Linus and rest of the Kernel team here, I just think v3 is too hostile to anything but GPL v3 OSS.
Also, Linux does not need to have to ask every contributor to change their license.
Code that was contributed under GPL v2 is still GPL v2, I don’t believe there was any clause in v2 that the author must also accept any future terms that may be drawn up in future license versions.
I don’t think there is anything preventing everyone from just using some other compatible license or GPL v2 fork and telling Stallman to pound salt.
I say go for it.
Edited 2006-09-22 22:06
Im glad Linux developers vote for a true freedom.
Does any of this have an effect on the DRM content or GPL3 going to be locked down?
Debian developer, Marco d’Itri, makes an interesting interpretation of this statement from Linux developers: this is a veiled threat that the major Linux corporations, Red Hat and Novell, may fork GCC and other GNU tools if GPLv3 refuses to adopt a more endorsing approach to DRM and software patents.
http://blog.bofh.it/id_117
The Linux kernel hasn’t been an amateur programmers’ effort for a long time now. Most of the Linux kernel code has been generated by corporate programmers for years and now it looks like the kernel maintainers prefer to stand for corporate interests instead of freedom.
http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/26641-1.html
It’s possible that d’Itri has got it all upside down but it’s nevertheless a fact that if they want to, the Linux kernel developers and OSI can do great damage to the cause of Free Software. That would be a very sorry day for everyone who loves software freedom.
Because RSM and GPLv3 fail to note that Corporations also have rights.
Because RSM and GPLv3 fail to note that Corporations also have rights.
I’m sorry, but what does this have to do with GPLv3? It also protects corporation’s right, but goes one step ahead and also prevents patent trolling upon the FLOSS developers, which is a good thing.
>It’s possible that d’Itri has got it all upside down but it’s nevertheless a fact that if they want to, the Linux kernel developers and OSI can do great damage to the cause of Free Software. That would be a very sorry day for everyone who loves software freedom.
I agree with you. But beside all the noise we shouldn’t forget that beside the Linux-Hacker a wide range of Free Software hackers and even Free Software companies seems to be happy with the progress of GPLv3. I think the scenario of a fork is more a dream of Marco d’Itri than reality. Look at the reality, we have a wide range of Free Software which is essential for a GNU/Linux OS many of them will switch to GPLv3 (all the GNU part) and one program will stay GPLv2 the kernel. That’s no problem. I don’t think that a group of companies would be able to maintain the complete GNU stack for a long time. Also think about KDE, GNOME and many other programs which i’m sure will switch to GPLv3 at least parts of it. Think about all the advantages: a GNU Classpath under GPLv3 will be able to integrate Harmony code (Remember: RedHat is a really strong company behind Classpath and i think they will love the possibility that the Apache license of harmony will be compatible to the Classpath license. So they will probably not fork GPLv3 code (like said by Marco d’Itri) but will be happy about the new possibility through GPLv3) or think about a GPLv3 Beagle which could use lucene etc. GPLv3 offers that much capabilities and have the power to garantee users freedom in the future. It’s no problem if some programs like Linux will use GPLv2 just like we have programs with BSD-license, MIT-license, Apache-license,…
To put some statements against the position statement and against Marco d’Itri’s blog entry let me refer you to two blog entries from Luis Villa, a GNOME Hacker:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-aren…
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-wrong/
Edited 2006-09-22 23:44
Luis Villas posts are great.
I don’t understand the kernel developers, really. It was clear to me Linux couldn’t adopt the licence for existing code from the first time on.
But what is this senseless ranting about? It looks like the kernel developers just don’t _want_ to really think and reason about the whole issue and act childish.
actually one of the main points in their stand is that v3 restricts freedoms more than v2, as it tries to mandate what you can and cannot do technologically with code under the license — eg: prevent DRM. while DRM is rightly loathed, a license written with clauses acting as political trojan horses is simly untrustworthy, and you find you are actually losing the freedom you rightly champion. and that is emphatically not the place of a license.
you don’t like corporations? tough — with v2 they have as much freedom as you do. of course, you also have as much freedom as them. it is a level playing field. GPL v3 would restrict what i would loosely call the “total amount of freedom” in this system. it offers no tangible benefits to developers. there is no reason to have a GPL v3 if you are not interested in using it to try and close out DRM — a strategy which not only cannot work, but has the potential to backfire spectacularly…
in short — if you really value freedom (that is, freedom for everybody, not just those you like/agree with) then GPL v2 would seem to be the way to go. it is proven, it works. what is GPL v3 trying to fix? nothing of fundamental substance i would say…
if they want to, the Linux kernel developers and OSI can do great damage to the cause of Free Software.
Which is exactly what the FSF is doing with GPL v3!
this is a veiled threat that the major Linux corporations, Red Hat and Novell, may fork GCC and other GNU tools if GPLv3 refuses to adopt a more endorsing approach to DRM and software patents.
Perhaps, but I liked the para 5.1 point, which I’ll paraphrase radically as “Free Software: give us the idea, hold the ideology”.
The world is too full of ideologies that fail to respect the right of others to disagree.
The world is too full of ideologies that fail to respect the right of others to disagree.
True, I agree; hence, I added a point to bring your score of the post back up to 1.
For me, I think the opensource world needs to worry less about the religious issues pertaining to the licence and more about churning out good quality code, and creating an environment which ecourages new people to contribute for the long term, rather than spontaneous one off patches.
Dear me, I’m surely glad someone stepped in to prevent the GPLv3 from ethnically cleansing the Linux kernel. Or committing genocide on the universe, even. Did Darl Mc Bride turn into a kernel hacker speech writer overnight, or when did the kernel devs start to confuse geopolitics crap talk with licensing crap talk?
Nevermind that the kernel could not move to GPLv3 even if someone wanted that to happen, having a 15-year long, rich history of diverse copyright holders, I get the feeling that this is mostly about kernel devs reassuring themselves that the status quo of the kernel license is the best choice for it. The GPLv3, since out of reach, is therefore really, really truly badly bad. As in very bad.
Righto.
It’s good to see what is basically a who’s who of respected kernel developers come forth with their positions on this matter.
Here is a link to the actual thread on lkml:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/448894/focus=448870
Note, particularly, Linus’ first (and at this time, only) comment. In particular:
“””My personal opinion is that a lot of the public discussion has been driven
by people who are motivated by the politics of the discussion. So you have
a lot of very vocal GPLv3 supporters. But I think that the people who
actually end up doing a lot of the development are usually not as vocal,
and haev actually not been heard very much at all.”””
I have no actual data to back it up. But I suspect there is some truth there.
Unfortunately, Richard Stallman’s response, up to now, has been, and rather explictly, that Linus never believed in the FSF’s goals and so he wasn’t surprised that Linus was against them now.[1]
In other words, he simply dismisses Linus’ opinion, out of hand.
I suspect that he will simply change his wording to “they have never believed in the FSF’s goals” and dismiss them all, out of hand.
In fact, I will go so far as to *predict* that when RMS responds (and you *know* he will), he will dismiss them as I have just described. I further predict that he will also mention, in his response, this past “Year of Discussion” in which the FSF (meaning RMS) has “listened to the community”.
(I, personally find that juxtaposition ironic and telling, but I honestly think he will do it.)
My personal opinion is that the “Year of Discussion” has been largely a crock, and almost entirely for show.
Absolutely nothing… no discussion… no argument, will sway RMS in any way, beyond the type of trivial bug fixes that have been applied to the GPLv3 drafts this year.
[1] See the last GPLv3 draft presentation. I believe he stated this in so many words in his opening presentation.
Edited 2006-09-23 00:19
>I have no actual data to back it up. But I suspect there is some truth there.
Just look at the members of the discussion committees: http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees
Their are people from a wide range of projects and companies: Samba, Novell, Yahoo, Eclipse Foundation, IBM, Google, Intel, Mozilla Foundation, Apache, Nec, MySQL, Trolltech, Sun, AMD, Sony, HP, Siemens, RedHat, Perl and many more. There are a wide range of people and everyone can participate. Do you really think that they all and all the people sending comments are “motivated by the politics of the discussion”, whatever “motivated by the politics of the discussion” means…?
>Absolutely nothing… no discussion… no argument, will sway RMS in any way, beyond the type of trivial bug fixes that have been applied to the GPLv3 drafts this year.
The aim of the discussion is a “great bug fixing party”. The goal of the GPL was always the same. The goal is: Give all users the 4 freedoms and make sure that the 4 freedoms will survive every copy. At the time when GPLv1 and GPLv2 was written enemies of this freedom had two possibility to bypass it: changing the license or distribute only binaries. So the GPLv1 and GPLv2 made this bypassing impossible. Today enemies of this freedom have more option: software patents and DRM. GPLv3 will do exactly the same thing GPLv2 does in the past, it will make this bypassing impossible. If you don’t want to close this holes than it will be hard to discuss GPLv3 with you. But if you stand behind the goals of GPL than you are welcome to discuss the draft of GPLv3 in detail to make sure that GPLv3 will do a good job and will not have some unintentional side effects.
Edited 2006-09-23 00:59
The goal is: Give all users the 4 freedoms and make sure that the 4 freedoms will survive every copy. At the time when GPLv1 and GPLv2 was written enemies of this freedom had two possibility to bypass it: changing the license or distribute only binaries.
So those supporting the GPL love “freedom” and those against the GPL are “enemies of freedom”. The language sounds just like Bush: those supporting the US love freedom and those against the US are terrorists.
GPLv2 was about the source code – that sources must always go with the software, that bugs must always be fixable. GPLv3 is about ideas, that only politically correct ideas (no patents, no DRM) be allowed in software. It in no way makes for better software. Do you understand why I despise GPLv3 now? I find the GPLv3 more gratuitous, more restrictive, and more suffocating than any other license. To you, it is freedom; to me, GPLv3 is the tyranny of imposing someone else’s values upon software.
>So those supporting the GPL love “freedom” and those against the GPL are “enemies of freedom”.
Please if you quote some text from me, quote it correctly. I have write about people which are “enemies of this [==defined by the FSF and implemented by the GPL] freedom”.
>GPLv2 was about the source code – that sources must always go with the software, that bugs must always be fixable.
No, that’s the problem. People just read the GPLv2 but to understand the aim of GPL you have to understand the philosophy of the FSF. The words of the GPL was about source code, because at the time GPLv2 was written the only option to remove freedom was to remove the source code. Today you can remove the freedom by legal constructs like software patents or by technology like DRM so the wording of GPLv3 will contain this subjects too. But it’s only the wording which have changed because the world around the GPL has changed the aim of GPLv3 is exactly the same like the aim of GPLv1 and GPLv2 was.
Edited 2006-09-23 11:17
“People just read the GPLv2 but to understand the aim of GPL you have to understand the philosophy of the FSF.”
Wrong! To understand the GPL you should only have to read the letter of the GPL itself.
The GPL is widely used now, and in many cases the people applying it to their projects don’t even care sh*t about the FSF’s philosophy. Linus et al are perfect examples of this.
>Wrong! To understand the GPL you should only have to read the letter of the GPL itself.
Wrong! The GPL is just a package of words. This words are written i a special time (here 1989-1991) so the words carry an idea expressed in the context of a special time. To get the idea you have to listen to the author because he is the only one who can distinguish between his ideas and the word he had to use in the time he has written it. Sure you can also interpret an idea into the text. But if you want to be sure what was the idea of the author and therefore which idea should be carried by the license you should listen to the author.
“Sure you can also interpret an idea into the text. But if you want to be sure what was the idea of the author and therefore which idea should be carried by the license you should listen to the author.”
Well, that’s exactly my point… Who cares about what was the author’s idea? The GPL may be a political tool to the FSF, but it is mostly a pragmatic license to most other people.
When most developers choose the GPL, they do so because its text best embodies THEIR own ideas. They don’t care about the FSF’s ideas, or what they meant when writing the GPL, because it isn’t the FSF’s code, it’s THEIR code.
To understand the GPL you should only have to read the letter of the GPL itself. — CrLf
Masterfully said. I feel I have to quote it; this statement alone describes why the GPLv2 works so well. I can use the GPL without subscribing to the FSF’s philosophy; I adopt the GPL because I agree with the license, and not because I agree with the FSF.
Masterfully said. I feel I have to quote it; this statement alone describes why the GPLv2 works so well. I can use the GPL without subscribing to the FSF’s philosophy; I adopt the GPL because I agree with the license, and not because I agree with the FSF.
Yes, a point that is lost on many people.
Linus has stated ad nauseum that he chose GPL v2 for pragmatic reasons, because it facilitated the development model he wanted.
It’s ironic that the pro v3 camp claims that the devs, like Linus, standing against v3 are merely corporate chumps and not committed to freedom. The reality is that this crowd, many of whom are not even devs, are attempting to hijack the kernel’s agenda from the person who originally created it. If Linus never intended linux to embrace the political agenda of the FSF, then contributors should have taken that into account when providing code. The fact that Linus removed the “or later” clause was a significant statement to that effect.
In hindsight, this could all have been avoided if Linus simply forked the GPL at the time and gave it a different name, even if keeping the text in spirit. People seem confused between the FSF ideals condemning anyone not equally zealous about the 4 freedoms with the more pramatic developers and perhaps more importantly, the commercial contributors, that embraced the development model because of it’s nature, not it’s ideology.
Do people really think IBM, SGI, HP et al. have contributed to the kernel under the tenents of software freedom? Or did they do it for pragmatic reasons in the name of collaborative software development? I know my opinion, and for that reason alone I believe any fork of the kernel would crash and burn; it would simply not be sustainable without the support it currently receives. It’s reality time for the FSF community, linux would not have obtained the momentum they’re trying to subvert WITHOUT the massive investment from the commercial interests. It’s simply denial to believe they’ll rollover just because of a vocal minority in the non-contributing community preaching from the moral high ground.
Linux is not a grassroots development thrown together by basement hackers in their spare time any more, it’s a multi-billion dollar business that has been driven specifically by the facilatory nature of the GPL, not the philosophy and it’s inherent zealotry. It’s as simple as that.
Let’s just change the name of the kernel license to LPL and move on?
But why use a license from a foundation if you do not agree with their philosophy. Would you also buy the stolen loot from the nazis even though you do not believe in what they did to get it. (stretching a bit I know)
Would you buy from Martha Stewart if she admitted sahe used child labor?
The license IS a extension of that philosophy. That is EXACTLY why that license was created was to further the philosophy. Why else would they have wrote their license for people to put work under?
All Linus had to do was take the GPL, change the parts he wanted (however small or large) maybe reword it and call it the Linux Public License. So why did he not do this? I have no idea…??? Unless at one time he did believe it would be beneficial and now he does not believe it. In which case everyone should sit down and get all the signatures, write the agreeements for a nice clean fork. The OSDL boys can have their “corporate” friendly version and us RMS Fanatic Zealots can have our “freedom first and above all else” version.
I say it yet again… fork,fork,fork,fork!
Edited 2006-09-24 19:29
But why use a license from a foundation if you do not agree with their philosophy.
Because it’s a legal document, not some way of life. There are thousands of projects which are probably using the GPL for its benefits, not for the philosophy. If its adherence was a must, then the FSF would have included this requirement in their licence.
All Linus had to do was take the GPL, change the parts he wanted (however small or large) maybe reword it and call it the Linux Public License.
Why should he have bothered if he was in agreement with the version 2 of the GPL? The “later” clause is purely optional (see point 9 of the licence). If the FSF didn’t want to give its users a choice, then they would have made it mandatory. The kernel devs are just using their rights.
That’s without mentioning that diluting the GPL by forking it for any philosophical disagreement with its author would have hurted the whole FOSS movement. Imagine having to cope with dozens of very similar, but somewhat different licences. Legal enforcement would be significantly harder to do, too. I believe many people are making a service to the FOSS community by using a licence from a highly political entity, even if they don’t share their whole spectrum of ideas.
In which case everyone should sit down and get all the signatures, write the agreeements for a nice clean fork.
Like they should fork for your pleasure? Get real. If you don’t like their stance, there is nothing preventing you from using another kernel like GNU’s own. At the same time, you might realise that an advanced kernel like Linux isn’t written in a day.
Some people pretend the kernel guys are corporate shills while others would like them to be lapdogs for the FSF. Yet, I just feel they don’t want to be dragged in such debate.
If the entire userland over Linux restricts the usage of patents or DRM, then using Linux with such features is going to be quite troublesome, if not impossible. Thus, I wonder if the licence upgrade is really necessary for assuring the freedom of the whole platform? I believe it’s more an issue of linking GPLv3 code to a GPLv2 project…
Edited for typo at the end.
Edited 2006-09-24 21:49
I am just discussing v2not reasons why anyone should or should not move to v3. That being said, if you believed in the goals of v2 then v3 should be a extension of those goals. It is still about keeping the software “free” and nothing else. You can call it whatever you want like anti-DRM and anti-patent and anti yada yada but that is not accurate at all. Anything, ANYTHING that can cause the source code to not be available is in direct contradiction of the GPL and v3 is simply a extension of v2 dealing with some of the current issues that go against “free”software. No more and no less. It is not anti-DRM it is and was and always will be about the freedom.
I am not saying everyone should use it, but I am saying that if you use it then you should believe in the FSF goals since the license was created to specifically protect the freedoms and THAT is the FSF ideology. The GPL is a legal document specifically written to further the FSF beliefs – if you do not believe in those beliefs then (I ask again) why use it?
The requirements binding you to their beliefs ARE in the license. Software freedom is the belief, software freedom is exactly what the GPL ensures.
Face it, Torvalds either believed in it to some degree yet now he does not or he feels it could be more important now if it was not under the GPL or he just never understodd the license in the first place.
If you belived in v2 then there is no reason not to belive in v3. Or should we let every company pull a TIVO or similar. Is that exactly why they want to stick to v2so they can exploit it now that we have new technologies that manage to squeak thru the GPL yet effectively lock up software?
“””The aim of the discussion is a “great bug fixing party”.”””
And if it contains a large bug which damages the cause in the end, but which RMS refuses to see?
Hardware manufacturers are going to go right on ahead with DRM. It’s part of their business model. Whether FOSS software is used in any particular hardware device is just an implementation detail.
The FOSS community tends to overestimate the importance of FOSS software to manufacturers of embedded devices.
Case in point: Linksys’ WRT54G wireless router. It *was* Linux based. They replaced it with a non-linux based router using the same model number, because it was *cheaper* to make using a proprietary operating system than with Linux. (They were able to cut the memory in half.)
To their credit, the Linux-based unit, now called the WRT54GL, is still available “for Linux enthusiasts”… for the old price, which is 34% higher than the new.
http://tinyurl.com/psxr7
The point being that, as I said, using FOSS software or not is simply an implementation detail. We have no significant leverage in the market that RMS intends GPLv3 to address.
The net result of GPLv3 is that we are simply going to see *less* FOSS software in embedded devices for which DRM is important. And we will see absolutely *no* manufacturers decide not to include DRM because of GPLv3.
More succinctly, RMS is so focused upon purity that he doesn’t see where he is cutting of his nose to spite his face.
The DRM provisions of GPLv3 are going to do more *harm* to the cause than good.
More succinctly, RMS is so focused upon purity that he doesn’t see where he is cutting of his nose to spite his face.
Actually, I think RMS does know about this and it may be one of his goals for v3. I don’t think he’s a big fan of the commercialization that Linux and other OSS is going through right now, and I think he intends the new license to drive them away and return OSS to the political roots that he started.
>And if it contains a large bug which damages the cause in the end, but which RMS refuses to see?
Than you sould participate in the discussion and make sure that the bug will be fixed. But if you consider it as a bug that someone can’t remove users freedom by distributing only binaries, distributing source code but use patents to remove the freedom or use technology so that you can look at the code but can’t do anything usefull with it than you probably haven’t found a bug but simply have different aims than the FSF and the Free Software movement.
>Hardware manufacturers are going to go right on ahead with DRM. It’s part of their business model.
Maybe, maybe not. I could also argue “Software manufacturers are going to go right on ahead with proprietary software. It’s part of their business model.”. SO maybe we should drop the whole copyleft in GPLv3 and make GPLv3 another MIT-license? The GPL was never about making it comfortable for someone, the GPL was always about the ideas of freedom for everyone and not about freedom (we could also call it power) for some few manufacturers to make as much money as possible with our code by refusing the freedom of their customers.
“To their credit, the Linux-based unit, now called the WRT54GL, is still available “for Linux enthusiasts”… for the old price, which is 34% higher than the new.”
In fact, the WRT54GL is a much better unit than the VxWorks one, even if you don’t want to replace the original Linksys firmware. (Cutting the memory in half wasn’t just a result of switching OSes, but also the result from the loss of functionality.)
“””In fact, the WRT54GL is a much better unit than the VxWorks one,”””
That may be. But head on down to your local brick and mortar to see which of the two is the commercial success.
I just checked, and CompUSA, Best Buy, Walmart, Office Depot, and OfficeMax all carry the G. None offer the GL.
You pretty much have to search amazon and a handful of other online outlets to find a GL.
At any rate, I’m a Linux advocate, and my point is not to trash embedded FOSS or to debate the relative merits of the G and GL to the consumer, but to point out that any leverage our freeby code gets us with the manufacturers in this market is miniscule.
It’s insane to think that GPLv3 is going to have any effect but to exclude GPL’d software from consideration.
“I’m a Linux advocate, and my point is not to trash embedded FOSS or to debate the relative merits of the G and GL to the consumer”
I understood that, I was just making a side note about the device itself.
“It’s insane to think that GPLv3 is going to have any effect but to exclude GPL’d software from consideration.”
Well, it’s worse than that. Not only some embedded companies will just look for other options, but the whole industry will get that FOSS sour taste back. You know, that whole “GPL is cancer” and “FOSS advocates are communists”.
For a little background read this from about 5 years ago.
http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=12503
The bottom line is that if Stallman wants his own ideological operating system, then he should get Hurd done.
That would be the silver bullet: the perfectly free OS, showing the world how you can stay clear of proprietary software and be happy. Funny how it never materialized during all these years …
rehdon
Say no to DRM.
I’m glad to see the kernel developers stand rightfully against GPL v3.Adopting it would mean a violation of trust against every single one who contributed since 1991.
Is GPLv2 compatible with DRM? ummm- well, yes.
Is GPLv3 compatible with DRM? umm- well, no.
Is DRM going away? Not in this lifetime.
So if it’s GPL vs. DRM, kiss all your hard work goodbye.
Why is it that every time the subject of the GPL comes up, the discussion gets increasingly bad-tempered and accusations soon start flying. You can see it here, on Slashdot, Digg, wherever.
The first quality that goes out the window seems to be “live and let live”, i.e. tolerance, without which a truly free and civilized society cannot exist imho.
For this reason I’m a bit suspicious of the GPL. It seems to bring out the worst in people whereas the impetus behind the F/OSS movement is to bring out the best in people. Paradox.
Fact is, while I’m all for F/OSS, I can’t but notice that the FSF / GNU / RMS propose a very polarised world, with no shades of color between black and white, with no space for compromise: when you push people in a corner they tend to react violently. The “proprietary software is evil”, “DRM is evil” tenets etc. are ethical judgements belonging to a few people, they shouldn’t be imposed on the majority of F/OSS users and developers.
rehdon
FSF is a political movement which goals and ideology most developers don’t share. GPLv2 is used simply besauce its most known OSS lisence and it does the job.
Enables cooperation while protecting _Your_ work.
If GPLv3 becomes problem with comercial distributions they cut off or fork software using it. Most developers probaply will also either stick whit v2 or look for other options. That’s besauce they want their programs to be distributed and used.
in short — if you really value freedom (that is, freedom for everybody, not just those you like/agree with) then GPL v2 would seem to be the way to go. it is proven, it works. what is GPL v3 trying to fix? nothing of fundamental substance i would say…
maybe you should read paragraph 18 of http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
We have all the usual themes right here in the article and in various follow-ups: clueless “GPL is not free” remarks by people who clearly don’t care about end-user freedoms, cliché overuse, even bizarre and offensive analogies to nuclear warfare based on some tainted history lessons. The only thing missing is an analogy involving different car manufacturers.
As for this particular group of kernel developers, I guess their corporate apologist standpoint makes a change from the intellectually lightweight arguments usually emerging from certain other well-known kernel developers. So, Red Hat and friends having software and process patents isn’t a “chilling effect” (cliché alert), but the FSF protecting users and developers from the moral ambiguity of such businesses causes just such an effect? Why not just leave such position statements to the company lawyers, or is it Red Hat’s (IBM’s, Sun’s… insert patent/DRM-wielding company’s name) policy to have well-known community-involved employees put their names on corporate policy documents in some unsubtle attempt at astroturfing?