Submitted by The article goes on to paint a doomsday scenario about how there will be an older version and a newer version of Linux floating around, and how such a division will split and ultimately weaken the Linux operating system.
GPL v3: Who’s Driving That Bus?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
For those of you wanting more info on the specifics of GPLv3 I recommend the following link:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060118155841115
It is a diff of the 2 licenses provided by Groklaw.
And as always, you can check the GPLv3 version of the Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3
The latest draft of GPLv3 can be found at: http://gplv3.fsf.org
I encourage you to form your own opinions on the changes.
I don’t see the problem.
The Linux kernel is GPL v2 only, and won’t change unless the developers decide to do so.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I can’t see any problem at all.
All of these Linux and GPL3 articles are entirely irrelevant. Several programmers contributed code to the Linux kernel under the 2.0-only version of the GPL, and then left to move onto other projects, or in some tragic cases died.
As they never assigned copyrights to anyone, and since Linux had for years a very informal code-tracing and version control mechanism, it is impossible to relicence Linux under any under licence. Re-writing portions of it is not an option, as no-one knows how much needs to be written.
So all this Linux/GPL3 stuff is totally redundant hot-air.
As for GPLv3, the core idea of the GPL was that code could be shared and re-used anywhere. Patents can allow people to share code while prohibiting it being re-used in other projects and thus they are forbidden. DRM (particularly in an America under the yoke of the DMCA), can be used to allow people to share code, while prohibiting its reuse in other projects, and thus it is forbidden.
These loopholes currently allow people to use GPLv2 code in their own projects, and prevent the original authors of that code using their improvements. This is entirely against the philosophy of the FSF, GPLv1 and GPLv2, which is why it is being addressed in GPLv3.
RMS is not a zealot, and Linux is only tangentally related to this discussion. The real problem with GPLv3 is the amount of people talking out of their asses without ever stopping to think or even do some basic research. The license itself is actually pretty decent, provided that you understand it places long-term freedom above short-term convenience.
Edited 2006-10-14 21:39
Important part #1:
As for GPLv3, the core idea of the GPL was that code could be shared and re-used anywhere.
Important part #2:
Patents can allow people to share code while prohibiting it being re-used in other projects and thus they are forbidden.
Important part #3:
DRM (particularly in an America under the yoke of the DMCA), can be used to allow people to share code, while prohibiting its reuse in other projects, and thus it is forbidden.
Important part #4:
The license itself is actually pretty decent, provided that you understand it places long-term freedom above short-term convenience.
Nice to see some common sense around here.
Said beautifully.
thank you.
A couple of questions to ponder.
First, would be FSF and its followers be prepared to compromise their principles in order to ensure the greater success of Linux and open-source software generally?
Second, Linux long ago ceased to be a community effort made up exclusively of individuals. The reality today is that corporates and institutions provide huge and arguably decisive support to Linux by way of R&D, grants, jobs and all the rest. Is it really wise of the FSF and others to cast so much of the GPL debate as individuals coding for open source vs big bad business?
No right or wrong answers. I’ll just note that this is debate is as much about the capacity of FSF and its followers to grasp reality as it is about the GPL.
>First, would be FSF and its followers be prepared to compromise their principles in order to ensure the greater success of Linux and open-source software generally?
Short: No, because our goal is freedom and not popularity of some piece of software.
Long: The same question arisen as GPLv1 and copyleft was invented. People said “Oh, but we must be nice to companies and if we don’t allow them to abuse our work in proprietary software they will not support us and we will fail”. History has proven that this assumption was wrong. Copyleft software is a great success and companies support it.
Now look at the GPLv3 debate. Single people say that we should care more about companies than about freedom. But what does the companies saying? I haven’t heard any of them saying that they will leave Free Software if it is licensed unter GPLv3.
– Simon Phipps from sun seems to be happy with the progress of GPLv3 (http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/gpl_v3_progress)
– The last statement from HP i have heard was that they are happy with the progress and just want some clearer wording in the patent section. And they are confident that the next draft will achieve this goal.
– Dietmar Tallroth of Nokia is happy with the GPLv3 progress and said that unless there were major surprises, Nokia will be going with GPLv3. (https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/piracy_redefined_…)
So for me it seems like some people seeing more problems than really exists. Or as Georg Greve says (link above): “It would be an odd item in the history of Free Software if major companies like Nokia have end up having no problems with GPLv3, but the Linux kernel refuses to use it for what is a percieved lack of friendliness with the commercial world.”
Edited 2006-10-14 22:28
The same question arisen as GPLv1 and copyleft was invented. People said “Oh, but we must be nice to companies and if we don’t allow them to abuse our work in proprietary software they will not support us and we will fail”. History has proven that this assumption was wrong. Copyleft software is a great success and companies support it.
History has proven that this assumption was correct, hence the creation of the LGPL, without which GNU would be nowhere. Why is it wrong for Tivo to lock a linux kernel to a hardware platform they provide at a subsidized price while Gnome, the official desktop of GNU/Linux, can jump up and down about the ability for proprietary vendors to produce closed and locked software utilizing free software with absolutely no return back to the community that developed it as an advantage over Qt which enforces GPL? What happened to “freedom”?
Now look at the GPLv3 debate. Single people say that we should care more about companies than about freedom. But what does the companies saying? I haven’t heard any of them saying that they will leave Free Software if it is licensed unter GPLv3.
– Simon Phipps from sun seems to be happy with the progress of GPLv3 (http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/gpl_v3_progress)
Yes, Sun’s endorsement in GPLv3 is vital, since they have no ulterior motives. Heaven forbid the linux community should get split.
he last statement from HP i have heard was that they are happy with the progress and just want some clearer wording in the patent section. And they are confident that the next draft will achieve this goal.
We’ll wait to hear their final judgement, but at least they’ve had the cajones to take a stand as opposed to certain other Big Blue contributors to the kernel that have cowered in the corner waiting for the dust to settle, so I’ll give them credit for that.
Dietmar Tallroth of Nokia is happy with the GPLv3 progress and said that unless there were major surprises, Nokia will be going with GPLv3. (https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/piracy_redefined_…..)
What does Nokia care? They know the kernel will stay v2, so they can continue to lock it to their platforms while being v3 friendly in userspace?
Principles are fine and all, but v3 is nothing but an attempt to leverage Linux’s success to advance an agenda. How about all the v2 proponents stick to linux, and the v3 proponents start working on Hurd, and we’ll see where everyone winds up same time next year.
Answer to question one: No. It’s about Free software. GNU/Linux, for a lot of us, happens to be that Free software. The day Linux stops being Free, I’m moving to BSD. And “open source” software won’t be a success if it’s not Free. It’ll be just another thing on your PC you can’t study, change, or share. In short, a failure.
Response to question two: GNU/Linux was written by users, for users who wanted their software to be Free, long before any corporation started shelling out money. And if all the money dried up, and the companies went away? My software would still be Free. We wouldn’t be able to develop as quickly, or have as much hardware to play with, or as much time to do it with. But my software would still be Free.
Answer to question two: Yes, it is wise. The FSF is all about software users and their freedoms. Here it is straight from the horse’s mouth ( http://fsf.org ) “The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users’ rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant.” First up, freedoms. Next up, promotion and use. Not the other way around.
And “grasp reality”? Reality is, GNU/Linux will be as strong or as weak as we make it. The GPL makes sure that no big business, no corporate fear-mongerer, or runaway lawyer can change that.
First, would be FSF and its followers be prepared to compromise their principles in order to ensure the greater success of Linux and open-source software generally?
You have to understand, the FSF has nothing to do with open source. It’s a completely different ideology. The only thing that would happen is that Google, IBM, and everybody else decides GPL v3 is crap and forks all the GNU userland crap or just forks GCC and ports the BSD userland to Linux. In fact, there’s Gentoo ports that have done just that.
The FSF can choose to further isolate itself or not. But at the end of the day, whatever it does is irrelevant to open source.
That’s all it is, because anybody with a couple neurons knows that for all practical purposes the Linux kernel can’t change to GPL v3 or any other license. And it doesn’t matter what Stallman or Torvalds or anybody has to say about it.
Why these people, whose apparent entire lives revolves around Linux, can’t grasp these simple concepts is beyond me.
When Stallman says “I would hope the linux developers would switch to GPL v3, but it’s up to them”, he knows that will never happen because it can’t, but I’m sure he would be happy for things to be as disruptive as possible in order to satisfy his political agenda.
There is nothing “free” about the GPL.
The GPL is viral. It is about entanglements.
One of the dictionary definitions for “free” is:
exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one’s will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
Software licensed under the GPL is NOT exempt from restriction. In fact the GPL is the MOST RESTRICTIVE of the comunity licenses.
There is nothing “free” about the GPL.
The GPL is viral. It is about entanglements.
All copyright is viral. If I take any copyrighted work and create a derived work, the derived work is covered by the copyright on the original, regardless of the license the original work was under. The difference is that the GPL allows me the freedom to release such a work.
One of the dictionary definitions for “free” is:
exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one’s will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
Software licensed under the GPL is NOT exempt from restriction. In fact the GPL is the MOST RESTRICTIVE of the comunity licenses.
That depends on what freedom you value. If you value the freedom for some people to become obscenely rich at the expense of others then you will not like the GPL.
The paradox of freedom is that every freedom that people have incurs a corresponding restriction on others. The freedom to life incurs the restriction not to kill. The freedom to physical movement incurs the restriction not to physically restrain. In this sense, the GPL is full of restrictions. But then, in this sense the ‘Free World’ is full of restrictions.
“All copyright is viral. If I take any copyrighted work and create a derived work, the derived work is covered by the copyright on the original, regardless of the license the original work was under. The difference is that the GPL allows me the freedom to release such a work.”
That’s not even close to true. If I take a piece of BSD licensed code and create a series of patches for it, I can license them any way I want to whether it be BSDL, GPL, or commercial. If I do the same with a piece of GPL’d code I HAVE to license my code under the GPL. That is where the viral part comes in. Not all copyright is viral.
Since the definition of a derived work is pretty broad in the respective law. For example, a work based on another work is considered derivative. So if you write a program using characters from Harry Potter (a game, for example), with their recognizable features, you’re deriving from Rowling’s work, and she has a say in what you can do with the resulting work. Harry Potter is not
licensed under the GPL, so the ‘virality’ of Rowling’s copyrights has nothing to do with the GPL.[1]
Copyright law grants the original author exclusive rights, that she gets to keep through all modifications of the work. If the author does not like what you’re doing with their work, they can prohibit you from distributing the result, like some right holders have done with music mashups, like the ‘Dean Gray’ album.
The main difference between BSD and GPL is that they use the ‘virality’ (i.e. exclusive grant of certain rights to the original author stretching over to derived works) embedded in copyright law for different goals: BSD to force you to propagate the original author’s copyright notice, GPL to force you to propagate the GPL.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Lawsuits
Edited 2006-10-15 13:28
” If you value the freedom for some people to become obscenely rich at the expense of others then you will not like the GPL.”
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
It makes perfect sense if you understand the GPL and BSD licenses.
Like I said Cisco and Microsoft have gotten rich, both using BSD software (Cisco in their IOS and Microsoft in Windows)
And did the BSD developers get ANYTHING out of that? NOPE, not even access to improvements made to their own code!
Like I said Cisco and Microsoft have gotten rich, both using BSD software (Cisco in their IOS and Microsoft in Windows)
Hating large companies doesn’t prove the GPL is about “freedom”. The GPL is about coercion.
The BSD license is about the fredom of anyone to use the code … whether it is large companies or one person.
I don’t care whether you prefer the GPL license to the BSD license. Just stop claiming the GPL is about “freedom”.
“Hating large companies doesn’t prove the GPL is about “freedom”. The GPL is about coercion.”
Ummmmm, last time I looked no one was forced to use GPL software. If you don’t like the GPL then go make your own code. Oh yea things like Linux under the GPL are really darn good but darn I can’t rip them off like I can with things under the BSD license!
“The BSD license is about the fredom of anyone to use the code … whether it is large companies or one person.”
And ummmm also the last time I looked ANYONE could use GPL code also. The difference is that with the BSD license you can use it and keep it without giving anything more then passing credit (Hidden in the application)
The GPL is more like the real world. Just like any normal person goes to work, they expect to get paid. Well if you use my GPL code I expect code back.
The GPL is more like the real world.
In the real world if I give you a free cookie I don’t put restictions on it.
If someone advertised “free TV’s” with anything like the restictions on it like the GPL they would be called a con artist and shutdown.
“In the real world if I give you a free cookie I don’t put restictions on it.
If someone advertised “free TV’s” with anything like the restictions on it like the GPL they would be called a con artist and shutdown”
Thank you for proving my point! because in the real world NO one but my grand mother when I come over to visit gives away cookies! And if you can find someone giving away free TV’s please let me know cause I could use one! LOL!
In the real world people sue if you take their cookie recipe and in real world companies like Sony and Samsung etc make billions selling TV’s not giving them away. And just like with DVD players, and Hybrid cars thousands of companies make them but they ALL pay license fees back to the companies who came up with the technology (And Toyota is making a Mint off Hybrid tech cause they jumped out there and created the whole market, putting patents on all kinds of crap)
All I am saying is that in the real world it’s best to share and share alike. If I make software and even if I GIVE it away, I would like to make sure that if you take 10% of my code, you give me back 10% of the changes you make. SIMPLE!
/ If someone advertised “free TV’s” with anything like the restictions on it like the GPL they would be called a con artist and shutdown. /
If someone advertised “the land of the free” with anything like the restrictions on it like American law (do you know how many restrictions there are in American law) they would be… oh, wait…
So what? I’m sure they wouldn’t mind having money or their improvements back, but they are not asking for them.
I believe works under the BSD licence are gifts. With a few exceptions, people can use them how they want, when they want, for what they want. They are really free. Perhaps a better word could be charity, since it’s essentially what it is: gifts with no strings attached.
The GPL wants to assure the freedom of a work and its lineage. That’s okay; I understand the philosophy and the reasoning behind this. However, we are humans, not software (hopefully!). In reality, the GPL is imposing restrictions upon our freedoms. Now, I respect the FSF. I believe GNU is a wonderful project and the GPL is a great licence. Still, it’s not exactly what I call freedom for us. Another word should be used/created.
Improved formatting, fixed typos
Edited 2006-10-15 03:45
I would call it charity if the people who were getting the most out of it were people or groups that needed charity. But the people who are getting the most out of this so called “charity” are people who don’t need charity.
The GPL actually makes it easy to give real charity. It’s because of the GPL that poor people will get laptops from the OLPC project. As in the past with other BSD projects, someone can just come along, buy up the project then close the code.
The GPL will make sure that GPL code is forever available!
No one can ‘close’ BSD code.
The only difference between GPL & BSD is that changes to BSD code do not have to distributed with binaries.
Web companies such as Google can make extensive modifications to GPL licenced software and do not have to share those modifications (since they are not distributing the software as binaries, they are providing services running on top of the software). So in a sense, they are doing what many proponents of the GPL licence seem to hate … they are making billions off of other peoples work without sharing their changes.
Edited 2006-10-15 04:26
First of all we don’t actually know what Google has done. But for now we are for sure that they are spending plenty of their billions on people that work on GPL code. Dont see Cisco, MS or Apple doing that with BSD.
And yes you can close BSD code, meaning you can take ANY BSD project and if they choose to sell out they can and then not share any future code based on the BSD code they have. For instance if FreeBSD choose to sell their company to say Microsoft, they could sell everything and Microsoft could include ANY of that code in Windows or whatever and not have to put any of the source out. Apple is a good example of this. They put out what code they want, they close it when they want. You see what happened to Open Darwin because of this practice.
I don’t know which one is really better, I do know that Open Source did not get popular till GPL based software got popular.
Windows Sucks: And yes you can close BSD code, meaning you can take ANY BSD project and if they choose to sell out they can and then not share any future code based on the BSD code they have. For instance if FreeBSD choose to sell their company to say Microsoft, they could sell everything and Microsoft could include ANY of that code in Windows or whatever and not have to put any of the source out.
The same thing can be done with GPL projects. The GPL does not restrict the original authors from offering their code under another license. In fact, a number of companies which produce GPL’d software provide their software under alternative licenses.
So… For example… If Microsoft buys out MySQL, they could integrate MySQL with Access or whatever and never give out the source.
However, with a GPL project, you do need the agreement of all the people who contributed to the project. Naturally, you could weed out the contributions of the people who don’t agree, but that could be troublesome.
First of all we don’t actually know what Google has done. But for now we are for sure that they are spending plenty of their billions on people that work on GPL code.
Actually, it is known that google has added all sorts of cool features to their version of Linux, such as process migration, GFS, etc. And yes, it’s true that google helps out other GPL projects. I wasn’t trying to critize google, I was using them to illistrate a point: GPL software can be modified and exploited for financial gain without sharing the code, just like BSD code can. The differance is that only ASPs can do it with GPL code.
And yes you can close BSD code, meaning you can take ANY BSD project and if they choose to sell out they can and then not share any future code based on the BSD code they have.
That’s not ‘closing’ the code. That’s just not offering to share any future code. Anyone can download the pre-‘sellout’ code and continue the project.
Apple is a good example of this. They put out what code they want, they close it when they want. You see what happened to Open Darwin because of this practice.
OpenDarwin development could be continued … but as far as I understand there was little interest from developers. And it’s easy to see why, what would be the purpose of yet another bsd?
I don’t know which one is really better, I do know that Open Source did not get popular till GPL based software got popular
It’s my understanding that open source didn’t get popular amongst desktop users until the internet got widespread. Of course most of the early internet infrastructure ran on top of BSD code.
“Actually, it is known that google has added all sorts of cool features to their version of Linux, such as process migration, GFS, etc. And yes, it’s true that google helps out other GPL projects. I wasn’t trying to critize google, I was using them to illistrate a point: GPL software can be modified and exploited for financial gain without sharing the code, just like BSD code can. The differance is that only ASPs can do it with GPL code.”
It’s funny that people keep going back to Google. yes Google is making money off of GPL code, but that is one company. You can’t even count on 2 hands and 2 feet how many companies have done the same with BSD code!
“That’s not ‘closing’ the code. That’s just not offering to share any future code. Anyone can download the pre-‘sellout’ code and continue the project.”
Ummmm if the code is available for download. With BSD you don’t have to continue to share the Pre-Sellout code like you do with the GPL. So you better have a copy already on file!
“OpenDarwin development could be continued … but as far as I understand there was little interest from developers. And it’s easy to see why, what would be the purpose of yet another bsd?”
Actually you are wrong on that. If you read the news posting you will see:
http://www.opendarwin.org/en/news/shutdown.html
“Over the past few years, OpenDarwin has become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects. The original notions of developing the Mac OS X and Darwin sources has not panned out. Availability of sources, interaction with Apple representatives, difficulty building and tracking sources, and a lack of interest from the community have all contributed to this. Administering a system to host other people’s projects is not what the remaining OpenDarwin contributors had signed up for and have been doing this thankless task far longer than they expected. It is time for OpenDarwin to go dark.”
They went dark because Apple was pussy footin with the source. LOL! It’s funny that groups like CentOS are doing great because of Red Hat having to GPL the code but Open Darwin died a quick death!
“It’s my understanding that open source didn’t get popular amongst desktop users until the internet got widespread. Of course most of the early internet infrastructure ran on top of BSD code.”
Actually Linux came about because of a LACK of BSD code. All tied up in lawsuits. Yes the internet still runs on a lot of BSD code. Not that the BSD developers get credit for it. Even companies like MS try to pretend like they have no more BSD code in their products. LOl!
It’s funny that people keep going back to Google. yes Google is making money off of GPL code, but that is one company
That’s the biggest example. I myself have modified GPL software for businesses and have released nothing back to ‘the community’. It happens all of the time.
You can’t even count on 2 hands and 2 feet how many companies have done the same with BSD code!
There’s no problem with that. That’s exactly what the authors of BSD licenced software want.
Re: OpenDarwin Actually you are wrong on that. If you read the news posting you will see ….. a lack of interest from the community
I think that you proved my point here. Open Darwin was discontinued from a lack of interest from the community. Apple had no obligation to release any sources (and the FreeBSD devs never required this). It was an experimental Apple ‘open source’ project that failed. Not an issue.
You’ve veared off course with your arguments here. This discussion started off on the premise that BSD developers get exploited because there code can be modified with no contribution, and that using the GPL avoids this. Well, as pointed out, this is simply not true.
Even the single premise that BSD developers are getting explited is false. If you spent any time reading a BSD mailing list you would find that they don’t want the code to any ‘enhancements’ made by Apple, MS, etc. They would argue that it would add ‘bloat’ to their well engineered software. They are happy that Apple has used their code, because previously Apple’s OS offering SUCKED (from a security & stability stand point).
“I think that you proved my point here. Open Darwin was discontinued from a lack of interest from the community. Apple had no obligation to release any sources (and the FreeBSD devs never required this). It was an experimental Apple ‘open source’ project that failed. Not an issue.”
Ummmm, if you actually read the Opendarwin page I think you will see that the lack of interest came from the lack of help that Apple gave. And if so many people love the BSD license then why do so many people cry that Apple is not giving back??? Why would a project like OpenDarwin have been started in the first place? Its was started by BSD developers! ??
Ummmm, if you actually read the Opendarwin page I think you will see that the lack of interest came from the lack of help that Apple gave. And if so many people love the BSD license then why do so many people cry that Apple is not giving back??? Why would a project like OpenDarwin have been started in the first place? Its was started by BSD developers! ??
Where do you get the impression that “so many people cry that Apple is not giving back”? The few people that took an interest in Open Darwin might be sore about it, but as far as I can tell the *BSD developers didn’t really care.
How many people do you think were actually involved in Open Darwin development? From their website it looks like there were about 3 (http://opendarwin.org/en/coreteam.html)
It appears that the Open Darwin team was better at marketing their cause rather than coding.
> Ummmm if the code is available for download. With BSD you don’t have
> to continue to share the Pre-Sellout code like you do with the GPL. So
> you better have a copy already on file!
If on the whole earth no user has a copy left on his disk which he can share again, chances are the program wasn’t that relevant anyway.
The only difference between GPL & BSD is that changes to BSD code do not have to distributed with binaries.
Actually, that qualifies as being closed. If Microsoft takes a piece of BSD-licensed code and put inside a proprietary application, then the sources have been closed. It is no longer open source.
However, in most cases, one can get to the original sourcecode. That’s better than nothing.
The GPL ensures you can always get to the sources – also the sources to modifications.
Whether to choose BSD/MIT or GPL depends on your goal. The Haiku project chose the MIT-license which makes sense considering the goal. GPL would be a mistake in the case of Haiku.
However, Linus chose GPL and for his goal the GPL is the right license.
Proponents don’t hate companies. Anti-GPL zealots do however like to put it that way. As a libertarian I don’t mind companies at all (on the contrary), but that doesn’t mean I like them to leech my work.
In the case of Google I don’t see the problem. They are providing a service, and so what? They can modify open sources as much as they want to. And providing a service do not qualify as distribution. So everything is alright.
Actually, that qualifies as being closed. If Microsoft takes a piece of BSD-licensed code and put inside a proprietary application, then the sources have been closed. It is no longer open source.
No, Microsoft’s changes are closed source. The original BSD code is still open.
This situation is no different then adding code to the Linux kernel, then running it in house so you don’t have to distrubute the changes. Google has done this, but do you consider the Linux kernel to be closed source? I think not.
No, Microsoft’s changes are closed source.
E X A C T L Y ! … It has been closed.
The original BSD code is still open..
In most cases, yes. I also wrote that. Why do you copy my posts? Incapable of writing your own posts?
No, Microsoft’s changes are closed source
E X A C T L Y ! … It has been closed.
Just *their* changes have been closed. Which is fine, because they wrote those changes. It’s theirs, they can do what they want. It doesn’t mean that the project is now ‘closed source’ (which is what you implied).
As I wrote earlier, if someone makes propietary changes to the Linux kernel (which has been done), does that mean that you consider the Linux kernel to be ‘closed source’? Read that again and compare it to your hypothetical Microsoft situation you’ll realize how silly this whole thread is.
The original BSD code is still open.
In most cases, yes. I also wrote that
No, you wrote it with the quantifier “in most cases”. Give me ONE case where a company has modifed and distributed BSD AND has been able to close the original sources. Guess what? You can’t. It simply hasn’t happened.
Why do you copy my posts? Incapable of writing your own posts?
If you had a reading comprehension above the grade three level, then you would realize that I’m not. Of course, then you probably wouldn’t be making these silly claims.
One of the four freedoms are the right to modify the modifications. If you cannot do that it is no longer open.
Without access to the modifications, the modifications cannot be considered open source. That’s the good thing and the bad thing about BSD.
The bad thing and the good thing about GPL is the fact that you can have access to modifications.
Both solutions have strengths and weaknesses which was what I stated in the very beginning.
It’s not always possible to get access to the BSD-code. In most cases yes, but not always, effectively rendering the project closed.
The only silly thing is you not reading what I write.
It’s not always possible to get access to the BSD-code. In most cases yes, but not always, effectively rendering the project closed.
You still have not provided any examples of this. That is because no examples exist.
The bad thing and the good thing about GPL is the fact that you can have access to modifications
Not true, I’ve provided an example where this is not true twice and you ignored it both times.
The only silly thing is you not reading what I write.
I have read everything that you wrote. You keep on repeating the same fallacies while ignoring my main points.
It’s pointless to continue this discussion any further.
It’s pointless to continue this discussion any further.
I agree upon that.
There is however no proprietary modifications to the Linux kernel. There are proprietary modules, but they are not a part of the kernel, and therefore do not qualify as modifications.
There is however no proprietary modifications to the Linux kernel
Ok, you really haven’t read what I’ve wrote. There are plenty of proprietary extensions to GPL software, including Linux. Google has added plenty of extensions to Linux, but none of the code has been returned to the community. This is the point that I have repeatedly made, and you have repeatedly ignored it.
Edited 2006-10-16 16:34
Google isn’t distributing anything. So why should they release it?
I can make any modification I want to Windows 2003 Server, and release the modifications as GPL (only the modifications though).
Google isn’t distributing anything. So why should they release it?
I didn’t say that they should release it. However, they are running Linux with proprietary extensions, which was the point I was making.
Of course, but that is at home within their own walls. Those are completely irrelevant.
The problem is when you take open source and modify them, without giving access to the modifications. Then it is no longer open source.
And that’s the reason for the extraordinary stupid “BSD vs. GPL Flame Party”.
Of course, but that is at home within their own walls. Those are completely irrelevant.
It’s entirely relevant.
The problem is when you take open source and modify them, without giving access to the modifications. Then it is no longer open source.
See, you got it wrong again. What you stated has been proven wrong repeatedly. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and state what you meant to say:
“The problem is when you take open source and modify them, and distribute the derivative binaries without giving access to the modifications. Then the derivative is no longer open source.”
Of course this is exactly what the BSD licence allows, and BSD developers intend it to be that way.
Ehh… that’s what I said.
I never said the original BSD-project wasn’t open source if the derivative was closed sourced. I just wrote that if you closed the derivative that project was no longer open.
The original is still open, to the extent it is accessible anymore.
It’s one of the strengths of BSD and its greatest weakness. The protection in GPL is the greteast strength and weakness of the GPL.
However, in-house modifications are utterly irrelevant. I will forever disagree with you upon in-house modifications, since there is no distribution.
You are free – no matter the license – to modify as you please in house.
The GPL allows that and the BSD allows that, and if an EULA do not allow the EULA is void (at least in Denmark).
Since there is no distribution of in-house solutions then there is no closing of the source. The closing of the source happens the second you distribute without giving source access.
Therefore – in house modifications are utterly irrelevant.
Ehh… that’s what I said.
No, you didn’t. If that is what you meant to say, then this whole thread is the result of your use of ambiguous english.
To clarify, I have no issue with in house modifcation of GPL software (i’ve done it). But statement such as “BSD can be closed”, and “all modifcations to GPL software must be returned to the community” is simply not true. The difference between what you wrote and what you meant might be subtle, but there is a difference.
You are so pernittengryn.
Well, charity isn’t necessarily about giving for those in the need. It’s promoting the public good without any kind of discrimination, whether they need it or not. It’s not a crusade against the rich.
Giving the whole credit to the GPL for the OLPC project is quite dishonest, since the project would have never been realisable without technological advancements and the generous contribution of those involved in the project…
An original BSD work is forever available, too. You cannot unpublish it, even in the case of the buy & close scenario which, by the way, can happens with the GPL (especially with projets where only one person/company is the copyright owner).
“Well, charity isn’t necessarily about giving for those in the need. It’s promoting the public good without any kind of discrimination, whether they need it or not. It’s not a crusade against the rich.”
See there is the problem, lack of understanding. No one says you can’t get rich off GPL. Red Hat, Novell and IBM seem to be doing a damn good job of it. What it is about is being fair.
“Giving the whole credit to the GPL for the OLPC project is quite dishonest, since the project would have never been realisable without technological advancements and the generous contribution of those involved in the project”
I am not giving whole credit to the GPL. It’s not like the GPL is a person. But notice that the people involved in the OLPC are big proponents of the GPL. The GPL is the backbone of the software in the project. I am sorry but this project would not even be on the drawing board if it was not for Linux and the freedom of Linux. Knowing that the source will ALWAYS be there and be free.It’s not like what Apple and MS do, give computers to the needy and then when you want or need the newest version of Windows or Mac OS you have to pay for it or go without. Because in reality Apple or MS give computers away with the hopes that people will use them, get hooked on Windows or Mac OS and then buy it for themselves or have their companies buy from them in the future. (Has nothing to do with charity or giving!)
And granted BSD was the backbone of the internet and the computer age but Linux and GNU are much further ahead now and have MANY more people backing them.
On top of that if the BSD license is so good then why are there not lots of companies backing BSD and BSD Licensed software. Why is there NO push in the software world to use the BSD license. GPL is all over the place!
“An original BSD work is forever available, too. You cannot unpublish it, even in the case of the buy & close scenario which, by the way, can happens with the GPL (especially with projets where only one person/company is the copyright owner).”
That is not true. With BSD software a company can not unpublish what is already in peoples hands, but they can make it no longer available. So in reality FreeBSD tomorrow could sell out to a company like MS. They don’t have to put out any of the BSD code in the future and they don’t have to continue to provide the old code. Even if people outside of FreeBSD helped write the code. That would never happen with Linux cause MS would have to get ALL the developers on board that ever wrote code for Linux. And Linus for one would not bite. So that ends that!
In the case of one person, that is not a problem since that one person is the only one who has rights to the code in the first place and they should be able to do with it what they want because it belongs to them. But if someone downloaded that one persons code then improved it, that downloader cant take it and make it better and then give it to others as a whole new project and not give the improved code back so the person who originally made the code can enjoy the improvements, just like the downloader enjoyed his software in the first place!
With BSD I can download it, put it with my software call it Mac OS or Windows or Cisco IOS and then make the BSD developers who made the software pay me to use stuff they made (If they happen to be Mac or Windows users and I am sure they use or have some Cisco routers around!)
As far as the Google thing goes, the GPL3 addresses the issue of companies using GPL, improving it, using it in house and not sharing back.
“See there is the problem, lack of understanding. No one says you can’t get rich off GPL. Red Hat, Novell and IBM seem to be doing a damn good job of it. What it is about is being fair. ”
just how much of IBM’s income comes from gnu/linux..?
“I am not giving whole credit to the GPL. It’s not like the GPL is a person. But notice that the people involved in the OLPC are big proponents of the GPL. The GPL is the backbone of the software in the project. I am sorry but this project would not even be on the drawing board if it was not for Linux and the freedom of Linux. Knowing that the source will ALWAYS be there and be free.It’s not like what Apple and MS do, give computers to the needy and then when you want or need the newest version of Windows or Mac OS you have to pay for it or go without. Because in reality Apple or MS give computers away with the hopes that people will use them, get hooked on Windows or Mac OS and then buy it for themselves or have their companies buy from them in the future. (Has nothing to do with charity or giving!) ”
I call BS… PC-BSD could be used insted of any gnu/linux distro any day of the week. It’s all about marketing…
“And granted BSD was the backbone of the internet and the computer age but Linux and GNU are much further ahead now and have MANY more people backing them. ”
I have yet to see where it is gnu/linux tops any of the bsd’s… the distros’s i’ve used latly havent been to impressive.
“On top of that if the BSD license is so good then why are there not lots of companies backing BSD and BSD Licensed software. Why is there NO push in the software world to use the BSD license. GPL is all over the place! ”
It’s like a bad habbit… not easy to get rid off. But if companies were so keen on using the gpl why would the company behind mysql (i cant remember the name) sell a commercial none gpl licens?
“That is not true. With BSD software a company can not unpublish what is already in peoples hands, but they can make it no longer available. So in reality FreeBSD tomorrow could sell out to a company like MS. They don’t have to put out any of the BSD code in the future and they don’t have to continue to provide the old code. Even if people outside of FreeBSD helped write the code. That would never happen with Linux cause MS would have to get ALL the developers on board that ever wrote code for Linux. And Linus for one would not bite. So that ends that!”
So you just asume that the FreeBSD team would sell out. And that the source only is on their hands..
”
In the case of one person, that is not a problem since that one person is the only one who has rights to the code in the first place and they should be able to do with it what they want because it belongs to them. But if someone downloaded that one persons code then improved it, that downloader cant take it and make it better and then give it to others as a whole new project and not give the improved code back so the person who originally made the code can enjoy the improvements, just like the downloader enjoyed his software in the first place! ”
People are well aware of this when they choose to use the BSDL. And yet people use it.. you can only wonder why they don’t just use the gpl. Could it be that some people arent into the “free software stuff” but just want to share their code and let people use it as they see fit.
“With BSD I can download it, put it with my software call it Mac OS or Windows or Cisco IOS and then make the BSD developers who made the software pay me to use stuff they made (If they happen to be Mac or Windows users and I am sure they use or have some Cisco routers around!) ”
You do asume a lot.. And why would they wanna pay for your stuff if they have it allready?
“As far as the Google thing goes, the GPL3 addresses the issue of companies using GPL, improving it, using it in house and not sharing back.”
Great way of making people use less gpl’ed software..
See there is the problem, lack of understanding.
Exactly, you don’t seem to understand the goal of the BSD licence… Our discussion is futile without this knowledge. The BSD licence is not about money, fame or expecting anything back. The BSD folks do encourage it, but they don’t require it. So why do you bring them as issues? So what if MS is richer if they couldn’t care less?
I am not arguing the superiority of one licence over another (it’s all about ideology), just trying to clear up some misconceptions.
No one says you can’t get rich off GPL. Red Hat, Novell and IBM seem to be doing a damn good job of it. What it is about is being fair.
Then it’s not about freedom, but fairness.
On top of that if the BSD license is so good then why are there not lots of companies backing BSD and BSD Licensed software. Why is there NO push in the software world to use the BSD license. GPL is all over the place!
Who cares? Not only popularity has never been a good argument, but it has never been a goal of the BSD licence. See above.
As far as the Google thing goes, the GPL3 addresses the issue of companies using GPL, improving it, using it in house and not sharing back.
Don’t you see anything wrong with that? What’s next, software audit? That’s what you call freedom?
“If you value the freedom for some people to become obscenely rich at the expense of others then you will not like the GPL.”
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
Let me spell it out for you.
Rules, such as those in laws and licenses, or games, create an environment within which people have certain freedoms, and certain restrictions disallowing them to impinge upon the freedoms of others. Every freedom that one person has is achieved by placing a restriction upon others.
People consider themselves more free when they have the freedoms that they personally value. If I highly value the freedom to hold loud night parties on my property, I will have different ideas to someone who highly values the freedom to enjoy undisturbed sleep on their property. If I highly value the freedom to have sex with minors, I will have different ideas to someone who highly values the freedom for minors to be unaccosted by crusty cradle-snatchers.
The game Monopoly is an instructive example of what kinds of freedom are given by one set of rules. Anyone who has played Monopoly more than a couple of times will notice a pattern. The more property a player accumulates, the more money they can seize from others, and the more property they can further accumulate. There inevitably comes a point in the game where one player has enough leverage to seize whatever the other players have left, regardless of what the other players do.
The GPL, on the other hand, is a set of rules which does not to make a few people obscenely rich at the expense of others. Hence, if you value the freedom for some people to become obscenely rich at the expense of others then you will not like the GPL.
There we go again.
There are two kinds of freedom.
1) The freedom as in “you can do everything, including taking the freedom away from other persons” -> that would be the anarchistic freedom (which is good).
2) The freedom as in “you can do everything, except limiting the freedom of other persons”. This is the democratic version of freedom. A true libertarian solution.
GPL is the latter, while BSD and MIT are examples of the first kind of freedom.
None is better than the other, and none is worse than the other.
MPL, CPL, IPL are all much more restrictive than GPL. So no, GPL is not the most restrictive license around.
Did anyone find distaste with the author’s general outlook on the whole debate?
“…Why the mainstream media is so insistent in creating a crisis around the licensing debate going on in the open source community.”
When I read the buzzword “mainstream media” I became very skeptical of whatever point the author is making. This IS NOT silly American “politics” (I use the word politics loosely here) where there are constant, mindless diatribes of liberals versus conservatives and media pundits constantly complain of the “mainstream media” and “liberal bias.” This is the free software movement, where every individual, developer or user, has her own opinion. Opinions are VERY diverse. Our diversity in opinions is our strength. Opinions are openly discussed and debated. This is called democracy.
Even on a superficial level, what would the “mainstream media” of the free software movement consist of? The author doesn’t mention what constitutes this hypothetical boogey-man, the “mainstream media.”
Well, as I wrote in the first comment to the article, I don’t really see the problem. Nor do I grasp the point of the author. I’m not sure there is a point. Or at least it is invisible to me.
If you’re going to assert a strong claim like the “GPL is the MOST RESTRICTIVE of the comunity [sic] licenses,” please provide some examples or proof to back up your opinion.
If I release the source code for an application to you, the most freedom I could give you would be to let you do what ever you want with it.
If I spit out a list of things you can’t use it for, and mandate that you make your changes available, etc. etc. I suppose a person not looking at “the big picture” could reasonably interpret the situation as “less freedom”.
Lets look at the definition of Freedom from answers.com:
“1. The condition of being free of restraints.”
Well I’m not the original author and I won’t claim to have read all the OSS license. Howver I think it’s pretty obvious that the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD, MIT, LGPL and MPL, which are the big ones. In fact the whole point of the above licenses is to be less restrictive than the GPL. Although I don’t doubt there exists a more restrictive open source license than the GPL, I’ve yet to run across a project that uses one.
If you’re going to assert a strong claim like the “GPL is the MOST RESTRICTIVE of the comunity [sic] licenses,” please provide some examples or proof to back up your opinion.
http://www.airs.com/ian/essays/licensing/licensing.html
“the GPL is among the most restrictive of open source licenses.”
—————-
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/evanx/archive/2006/05/cddling_up_with_…
“GPL is the most restrictive license, and BSD the least, with the CDDL sitting inbetween. The CDDL is less restrictive than GPL (it allows “free use” of derived works) but is more restrictive than BSD/ASL licenses (it is copyleft with respect to modifications).”
“In this case, (re)licensing your software means you are placing it into a “public commons” where everyone can play nicely with it. According to the license of that particular commons of course. And here’s the difference…
In the BSD commons, you don’t have to contribute your modifications or your derived works back into the commons.
In the MPL commons, you have to contribute only your modifications back into the commons.
In the GPL commons, you have to contribute both your modifications and your derived works back into the commons. ”
———–
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/LICENSES/theory.html
“These extra requirements actually make the GPL more restrictive than any of the other commonly-used licenses.”
Edited 2006-10-15 00:58
The big difference between GPL and BSD is that it’s harder to be used when you make software using the GPL.
For years the guys working on BSD made great software while companies like Cisco and Microsoft (Among others)have made BILLIONS using BSD code while the BSD developers made NOTHING.
At least with the GPL companies like Red Hat may make billions but I can still use CentOS for free and make money also, as can the developers. And if you don’t make money at least you have access to your code, changes and all.
I guess it all depends on what you call free.
The fact that you are free to do whatever you want with someone else’s hard work.
The fact that you can’t hold the hard work hostage and its free for everyone!
Me myself I don’t have a problem with people attaching non free software to GPL software as long as you don’t add to or take away from the GPL software. Which is what I think Linus feels also.
They can steal your nice GPL code and they do it. Furthermore you can nothing do about it, some small victories against a giant unknown mess in terms of stolen GPL code. Nice world
>For years the guys working on BSD made great software >while companies like Cisco and Microsoft (Among >others)have made BILLIONS using BSD code while the BSD >developers made NOTHING.
Nice, it’s true, but BSD developers are not driven by envy. GPL too doesn’t give back any code to BSD, they can use BSD code and mangle it with GPL, in the end it’s a one way ticket. “Freedom” in terms of the FSF.
Yes Linus likes the GPL *2*, but he doesn’t like any religious tendencies or moral aspects in a licencse.
It’s true that GPL’ed sources cannot be used with BSD, but that is irrelevant since it’s possible to freely use, modify and distribute GPL’ed sources.
It doesn’t matter if it cannot be used in BSD-projects. Just move the project from BSD to GPL. Anyway, by releasing it under the BSD you lose any moral and legal right to complain about not getting anything back (apart from credit).
Oh how nice, the GPL logic, do it our way or get lost. Thats the true spirit of opensource … please forget it – this is dictatorship!
>moral and legal right to complain about not getting anything back
BSD license is for humans and companies are driven by human beings too. Critic != whining a la GPL people!
GPL license interprets freedom, “guarantee it”, is interpreting it too. Nothing more, nothing less.
I go a step further, every University arround the world, which hosts Linux, BSD, supports projects in opensource and so on, is financed by the government. And who forms the government in a democratic country? Citizens form this democratic country, they support it with taxes and so on. Companies paying taxes too and they often support universities too.
So in the end, Microsoft, Apple and Sun … – they are all supporting opensource and they do not have the right to use the software? Yeah true, the “logic” of the GPL.
Do you think Linux would be known without the help of universities? It’s silly to think about it. I don’t like big software companies, but I am able to distinguish – it’s not a black/white world …
Sorry to rain your party, but ..
>Oh how nice, the GPL logic, do it our way or get lost.
>Thats the true spirit of opensource … please forget it >- this is dictatorship!
Nope. There are a bunch of licenses,that are compatible with the GPL insofar, that the terms of said license XYZ allow the transfer of code to the GPL. I have so far not seen a statement along the lines of “Hey, let’s rip those stupid BSD folks off, because their silly license allows this kind of thing” from side of the FSF, but if you have some official statement like that please share it with me. If the makers of license XYZ are concerned about the flow of code from their pool towards the GPL pool, they have the possibility to implicitly or explicitly dissallow such useage by making their own license incompatible with the GPl. Heck, you as the sole copyright holder can introduce additional restrictions to control where your code should go und how it’s usage should be restricted. But to complain, that GPL programmers can benefit from code under the BSD license without giving back, when the main idea behind the BSD type of licenses is to allow the usage of code without being forced to give back is, sorry to say that, extremely naive.
The GPL covers what is of concern for the FSF’s definition of freedom (which may be different from yours, as dylansmrjones has pointed out). The FSF helps developers of GPL code with insufficient legal education by stating which licenses are safe to get code from. It is neither the buisness of the FSF, nor the purpose of the GPL to free the makers of other licenses form their burden to cosider these things for themself.
>I go a step further, every University arround the >world, which hosts Linux, BSD, supports projects in >opensource and so on, is financed by the government.
Wrong. There are private universities financed by hefty study fees and third-parties, e.g. corporations, universities funded soley by corporations, universities funded by religous groups, … -> Wrong.
>So in the end, Microsoft, Apple and Sun … – they are
>all supporting opensource and they do not have the
>right to use the software? Yeah true, the “logic” of
>the GPL.
I don’t know about your country, but the last time I got funded to develop software for my university, the license terms of the software were part of the contract. There are countries, where – because of legal frameworks – it is difficult to release publically funded software under any other license than MIT like licenses or as public domain software. If your local legislation allows the developement of publically funded GPL software, AND this is an issue for you (or Microsoft, or Apple, or … you geth the idea ?), there is always the possibility to use the democratic channels to get your will (I assume, you live in a democratic country, though). I’m pretty sure, that none of the companies you mentioned will have problems to lobby their interests.
Applying your logic, I would also have to complain why I have to co-fund the public highway system with my taxes, since I don’t own a car and the law prohibits me from riding the high-level motorways with my bike.
regards
EDIT: fixed typos, added … developers of GPL code with insufficient legal …
Edited 2006-10-15 14:53
So far, the only one whining here is you. I like BSD, I like the MIT license, I like the GPL. I like any open source licenses, that grants me the four freedoms.
I don’t like the MS EULA, but I’m still using Windows 2003 Server, nonetheless.
Of course Microsoft, Apple and Sun are allowed to use GPL’ed software. Microsoft has even released software under the GPL. So have Apple and Sun.
In Denmark universities and such usually release software under the GPL.
The BSD is no different. Do it our way or get lost. You cannot use BSD-licensed code, unless you follow the license.
The difference with using BSD-licensed code in proprietary applications and in GPL’ed applications, is that in the latter situation the code is returned to the community – and stays there.
I don’t mind big software companies either. They are allowed to exist. Why shouldn’t they? However big companies like the GPL better than most would expect. Even Microsoft has its own “viral” Free Software license (incompatible with GPL but none the less very much alike the GPL).
I agree it’s not a black/white world – I haven’t stated that it was.
“So in the end, Microsoft, Apple and Sun … – they are all supporting opensource and they do not have the right to use the software? Yeah true, the “logic” of the GPL.”
I could say the same thing. My tax dollars in the form of tax breaks, loans from the government etc helped make companies like MS and APPLE. Do I get free ANYTHING from them? Nooooooo. So what comes around goes around in that instance.
Anyway I don’t know why we are even making a fuss over which license is better etc. In the end the GPL is growing like Wild fire and the BSD license is being used by???? BSD and sort of by Apache and sort of by Apple uses BSD code but they sure don’t use the BSD license when they put out source.
Also remember the original BSD license was a product of the settlement between AT&T/Novell/USL and Berkeley Software Design (BSDi) Its seems more of a compromise to make AT&T/Novell/USL happy then a stroke of genius!
Anyway: “The GPL breaks down walls between vendors and customers while enabling strong competitive differentiation. Unlike the BSD, which serves an ever-narrowing slice of the development community that shares code simply for the sake of sharing, (Like Apple) the GPL takes a hardheaded look at software development (and human nature) and works to maximize choice, control and a free market. No other open source license has done more than the GPL to make open source commercially viable. By emulating the traditional copyright format, the GPL facilitates commercial involvement in open source communities, which is important for expediting the spread and depth of open source software. Free market open source, thanks to the GPL.” (From Wikipedia)
Nuf said.
When the BSD license is actually a major force in the software world give me a call!
The worst part about this is that the GPLv3 is being used as a political tool. RMS is trying to wage war to push patent reform and fight DRM. First off, patents on software is bad. All adding this clause to the GPL does is enforce an already bad idea. We should be pushing for patent reform, not changing the GPL to work around the problem. As for DRM, that is really a hardware thing and something that can’t be won. Software is always secondary to the hardware we run it on. THink: Do we write drivers and then build cards to conform to them, or do we build cards and then write the drivers?
Here is the real problem which this article is alluding to. Since the kernel has to stay at GPLv2, what happens when you throw in GPLv3 software. Cause you know some people will follow RMS even if its right over a cliff. This could seriously lead to major problem in the Linux community.
Here is the real problem which this article is alluding to. Since the kernel has to stay at GPLv2, what happens when you throw in GPLv3 software. Cause you know some people will follow RMS even if its right over a cliff. This could seriously lead to major problem in the Linux community.
The number of people that will follow RMS over the cliff is completely insignificant. It’s a blip that will barely even be noticed by open source. Ten years ago it might have meant something, but not anymore since the grownups got into the game.
no, restrictive DRM is against the the idea that FSF and GPL is based upon. that is why GPLv3 is a necessity. perhaps if you read up on why FSF was started you’d understand why it can’t accept restrictive DRM (hint, it had to do with a printer driver).
Linus on the other hand, is now driving Linux as a commercial venture. for him and the companies he is serving, not being able to use restrictive DRM closes some possible business venues. and this is likely why he makes a racket. as the article points out, he is not forced to upgrade Linux to GPLv3. people submitting patches however, have the right to decide what licence they want to place it under. however, if Linus is to be believed, all the main kernel developers (again, all being payed full-time by companies to develop Linux) are all firmly against GPLv3, so what is he afraid of?
it’s a licence which contributors themselves decide upon using or not. if the Linux developers have nothing against restrictive DRM, no patches will use the licence. if they do however, they now have a way of making sure their contributions won’t be used in projects using restrictive DRM.
My grandfather used to have a saying about the media: “Whenever you see news on TV or read the paper about anything you are involved in or are knowledgable about, they get every single fact, figure and detail wrong, twisting it to sell papers or push their own agenda. If you cannot trust them to cover things you know about, how can you possibly trust them for things you don’t?”
Forbes has always had that in spades whenever technical subjects come up.
One thing to remember about reporters in general – they rarely if ever know ANYTHING about what they are reporting on, majoring in writing does nothing to get them knowledge of anything else, so they usually take the word of the first person who opens their mouth in a way they like and runs with it as the gospel.
Edited 2006-10-15 06:26
Dan Lyons:
I can’t help but think you’ve made them on purpose. Nobody is worried about someone forking the kernel. The fear involves the forking of other parts, the parts that go to GPLv3, including the parts for which FSF controls copyrights.
Despite what you say, others believe that it is still not clear that a distributor can mix v2 and v3 code. (These include lawyers at OSDL and HP, who are participating in the GPLv3 committees.)
This uncertainty about mixing v2 and v3 code is one issue that OSDL has been raising. If a distributor can’t mix GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code, what are they to do when key pieces go to v3? Sure, they can stick with v2 versions, but they won’t have access to future development that takes place under v3. So they’ll have to do that themselves. And it’s not clear they have the manpower to do that. Even if they do, others will be developing versions under v3, and they won’t be compatible. Is this really so hard to understand?
Another scenario: Even if v2 and v3 code can be mixed, a commercial distributor may not want to touch v3 code because it considers terms of the GPLv3 too onerous. Again, in that case that distributor can keep shipping the old v2 versions, but to develop new features the distributor would have to fork the elements of the OS that FSF has moved to GPLv3 (for example, gcc, glibc, binutils, etc.)
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you. Isn’t this a Linux publication? Did you read the statement paper from the kernel developers? Have you talked to any of those guys? I can’t help but think you’re being willfuly ignorant in pretending to think my article was talking about the Linux kernel forking.
Stallman’s camp isn’t going to fork the Linux kernel. If anything, they would probably do a build using Hurd in place of Linux. I’m sure you’ve seen that mentioned. You remember Hurd, right? It’s the kernel they were trying to make work when Torvalds came along.
For another thing: You and others keep raising the point that the change is “vo-lun-tar-ee” as if the world doesn’t understand that or as if my article claimed otherwise. We all know it’s voluntary. But GPLv3, as drafted today, would impose on companies that adopted it some arguably onerous terms. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads and making them use it. But what they are doing is saying, There are key parts of GNU-Linux that you need and which now are moving to GPLv3. If you want to stay with past versions under GPLv2, that’s fine, but the future versions from us are going to be under GPLv3. So if you want to use those, you’ll need to abide by the terms of GPLv3. Or you can just take over development of future features in all those pieces on on your own.
We know that FSF is going to take key pieces of GNU-Linux and move them to GPLv3. (In case you don’t know that, let me put your mind at ease — rms told me so himself months ago.)
The question is how onerous will the terms of GPLv3 be. If rms removes certain rules the commercial guys might not have a problem using GPLv3 code. If rms keep in language that makes GPLv3 too onerous for commercial distributors, this could in effect force those companies to take over development of forked versions of those pieces.
I’m not making this up. I’ve discussed it with Linus, Bottomley, Greg K-H, OSDL’s CEO, OSDL’s chief legal counsel, IP counsel for HP, head of open source at HP, IP counsel at Novell, and others who are participating in the GPLv3 committees. But sure, fire away. I’m sure it’s fun to call some reporter an idiot. Thanks.
Brian Proffitt :
You don’t seem to know what “mixing code” means. Yes, the FSF plans to shift GNU tools to GPL 3. But those tools are not part of the kernel. They are outside of the kernel, used to compile it or help it interface with other applications in some way. The licensing issue with the kernel only comes up if someone introduces a patch for the inside of the kernel that has a GPL 3 (or later) license.
No one is disputing that Stallman and the FSF will be upgrading their tools’ license. But I think the magnitude of the problem is overstated in your column and in your statements here. Linux distributions are composed of hundreds of separate applications, with many different licenses attached. Most are GPL 2, but there are some notable exceptions: Apache has its Apache Public License and Firefox has the Mozilla Public License. Some Linux distributors even put closed source, proprietary code in their package sets, and these prop. apps run alongside the kernel and all the other GPL 2 applications just fine (though admittedly this tends to irk purist Linux users).
The new requirements for the GPL 3 only apply to the code that is under the GPL 3 license. If gcc, to use one of your examples, were under GPL 3, then I as a developer would not be able insert code into gcc’s source code that had DRM characteristics. But the license does not prevent me from running a DRM application alongside gcc in a Linux distribution (if I were nutty enough to want to). I could even use gcc as a compilation tool to compile a DRM application. Said DRM application, however, would have to be licensed as something other than GPL 3, obviously.
None of the GPL licenses prevent a user from using whatever application they wish alongside a GPL’d application. Not even GPL 3. To do so would be an contradiction to the very core notion of software freedom. Sure, at the end of the day, we would all like to have free software, but the GPL never forces anyone to run only similarly-licensed software. How could it?
The only real problem comes along, as I mentioned in my article, if someone wants to try to introduce GPL 3 code into the source code of an existing application that is licensed as GPL 2 only. And then developers are going to have to hash it out.
As for your personal attacks, if that’s what gets you through the day, Dan, then have at it. If I made errors in my article, then my readers–including the people you mentioned–will point it out to me, and I will listen and learn. Until that time, it doesn’t change the fact that I believe your article is incorrect and exaggerates a licensing issue into an all out disaster. The very derisive tone of your article makes quite clear the disdain you have towards Linux and free software and its participants, so playing the objective card with me is hypocrisy at its finest.
I knew Moulinneuf would come into this. Now be prepared for his wrath.
dagw, thanks for clarifying. I wasn’t entire sure about the differences between the various GPL licenses.