Submitted by “When I wrote about the wrangling over the GNU GPLv3 licence a month back, it provoked a lively conversation in the comments. Given this evident passion among readers, I thought it would be interesting to ask the top hackers – the ones actually involved in the discussions – for their thoughts on the matter. So I contacted Richard Stallman for the FSF angle, and a bunch of the top kernel hackers – Linus, Alan Cox, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Andrew Morton and Dave Miller – for their view.”
Seems a little unfair to interview only one person from FSF, then interview a bunch of people who disagree with him. That said:
Also, please note that the DRM issues have changed over time from being very broad (which was at least admirable), to being explicitly targeted at only the Linux kernel.
Is this (and some other comments) meant to imply that the Linux kernel developers believe is weaving GPLv3 (or a part of it, at least) to target Linux?
That’s the first I’ve heard/read of that.
Tivoisation means taking a free program and distributing a binary of it, and also providing the source, because the GPL requires that. But when the user changes the source code and compiles it and then tries to install the changed program he discovers that that’s impossible because the machine is designed not to let him.
The company is complying with the GPL and yet he still has an issue. I see no issue what-so-ever with a company doing what he describes. It will be interesting to see what happens when the license actually comes out.
Edited 2006-10-25 01:22
EXACTLY! I may want my PC to run PPC code, but I dont get pissed at Intel because they didnt make it possible for me to do that. He made the rules. Tivo followed them to the letter. Now he’s pissed he didnt think of something. Sour apples and such.
Tivo followed the licence completely and still managed to remove the user’s freedoms. That is the reason they are writing a new GNU GPL to prevent this from happening.
(Removed)
Edited 2006-10-25 08:05
“Tivo followed the licence completely”
Actually , Tivo broke the license , but by imposing a hardware lock-in , wich is a grey area in GPLv2.
Instead of going to court first , they ( the FSF ) are revising ( GPLv3 is not a rewriting or new license ) the license to adapt to new laws and show what there real intent where.
Contary to popular belief the FSF hate going to court and waste money on lawyer , the GPL is such a clear legal paper that in 99% of the infriging cases , the offender is made to comply in a settlement.
“Actually , Tivo broke the license , but by imposing a hardware lock-in , wich is a grey area in GPLv2. ”
It’s Tivo’s hardware… you can probably take the software and make your own ‘open’ hardware…. If the GPL is such a clear legal paper, then why do you think there is a gray area? I think your first assumption is probably right, and THAT is why FSF isn’t doing anything in court.
Maybe open software should only be used with open hardware… I’m sure someone will make that license. In the meantime, I think Linux and V2 is great.
“It’s Tivo’s hardware… ”
No , but then the GPL cover software , so the false point your trying to make is wrong.
“you can probably take the software and make your own ‘open’ hardware….”
Tivo use Open Hardware …
“If the GPL is such a clear legal paper, then why do you think there is a gray area? ”
The GPL cover software.
“Maybe open software should only be used with open hardware… ”
Open Software ? There is none in the GPL its all Free Software.
“I think Linux and V2 is great.”
I know Linux GPL is great , its even better when the GPL is up to date.
‘and that the FSF might even just stop using the name “GNU/Linux”, finally admitting that Linux never was a GNU project in the first place.’
Woah, Linus appears confused.
Obviously Linux wasn’t a GNU project(otherwise it would be call GNU Linux)
But large amount of the userland that makes Linux useful was created by the GNU project, thus the reference ‘GNULinux’ when refering to the operating system as a whole. Giving credit to the Linux developers and the GNU developers.
How much of the userland in a normal Linux installation today is grouped under the GNU Project umbrella?
How much, if anything, is actually NEEDED from the GNU userland stuff? Wouldn’t it be possible to ditch all the GNU stuff entirely and still keep a fully functional and useful system?
Would it be possible, or even useful, to have a strict installation that is only GNU userland and Linux kernel?
Both are possible.
For a non-GNU system, check OpenBSD. You could use its userland and provide Linux as the kernel. Et voila, no GNU utilities needed.
As for a GNU system, there are GNU tools for everything. The only thing still missing from a complete operating system is the kernel, unless we take Linux into account.
A significant amount of userland falls under the GNU project, BASH (and attendant commands) and GCC being the 2 that come to mind.
I disagree with the name GNU/Linux, but not with the thought behind it. Linux stands on the shoulders of giants to achieve what it has, but the name chosen and used is Linux. The contribution and necessity of the GNU tools in the growth and use of Linux is often underestimated but that does not give the FSF the right to choose what name the system is given.
Mr. Torvalds and at least some of the other kernel developers do not agree completely with the FSF/GNU philosophy. I do not think he or any others deny the importance of the GNU stack but it is part of a larger whole now. The Linux kernel is in a way a small portion of the overall OS, but its development was the catalyst that gave us the OS many use today.
Bash is easily replaced, i for instance use Zsh for interactive shells.
And for a ready to install system, a compiler is hardly essential.
I never bought the GNU/Linux thing, mainly because if i only have the kernel and GNU software, then the system would be close to useless (to me), and on the systems i am running i don’t see why GNU should get any more credit than the other projects the system is composed of.
So why should the kernel get the credit then? I dont know, in the beginning the entire system could just as well have been called GNU, and just have a kernel called Linux. Maybe because “GNU” is just not a very “brandable” name? Maybe just bad luck? Personal taste of the first few individuals, the first distro? Whatever the reason is it is history, and i think the FSF should just get over it.
“But large amount of the userland that makes Linux useful was created by the GNU project, thus the reference ‘GNULinux’ when refering to the operating system as a whole.”
Linux isn’t an operating system though and it could easily be used with non-GNU userland (and probably is in some devices).
What would be more correct is to say GNU/Fedora, GNU/Ubuntu and similar for distros that DO carry a considerable amount of GNU userland.
Then again, with the same logic Ubuntu should be called GNU/GNOME/Ubuntu and Freespire would be GNU/KDE/Freespire. Not exactly a smooth naming convention.
GNU/Linux is just incorrect.
Judging by the number of comments, it’s not just the kernel developers who have a dull regard for the issue…
I don’t understand how tivoisation goes against the principles of free SOFTWARE. The source is provided. You can modify the code to make it do what you want. You can re-compile the code. You can use parts of it in your own GPL’d project, etc.
The only restriction is that the Tivo HARDWARE won’t let you run the updated code. This has nothing to do with a software license and everything to do with proprietary locked-down hardware. There’s nothing stopping you from building a system that has similar hardware features to the Tivo, then modifying the Tivo source code to do what you want and running it on the hardware you built.
Why is this an issue for the software license? If you don’t like the fact that the Tivo won’t let you run the software you wrote/modified, then don’t buy a Tivo. The Tivo software (not hardware) is still free.
“The source is provided.”
If the source was provided the signed code would be included. So if you built additionnal feature on top of the original code it would run on TIVO.
“You can modify the code to make it do what you want.”
Exept run on the TIVO.
“You can use parts of it in your own GPL’d project, etc. ”
Why only parts when its all GPL …
“Tivo HARDWARE”
Tivo BRANDED hardware. They are using Open Hardware.
“This has nothing to do with a software license ”
Unless the license say you cant use the code to do that.
“There’s nothing stopping you from building a system that has similar hardware features to the Tivo,”
Why would I buy ( expanse ) and build ( expanse ) another system when I already own my tivo. Your comment is like saying I cant had a rear wing to my porsche because porsche made the car.
“Why is this an issue for the software license?”
Its free software , your guarantedd its protected from somebody closing it for only there own gain and only there own purpose.
“If you don’t like the fact that the Tivo won’t let you run the software you wrote/modified, then don’t buy a Tivo. ”
If you dont like the license dont use its software and dont license your software under it.
“The Tivo software (not hardware) is still free.”
You dont get it that with GPL software you are not legally allowed to close it in anyway shape or form …
If the owner of the code whants to allow you to do so he as to offer the same code that he own entirely under another license.
I see your point and it is a good one. But you fail to mention that even if you can modify and recompile the code, you can’t make use of the recompiled code on the device you purchased. Ergo the software is not free for you: the freedom to addapt the program to your needs (freedom 1) is not present for you.
I agree with you that one cannot call the Tivo hardware free either. This is also not nessecary as long as people are able to write free software for this device. This is clearly not the case with Tivo.
I don’t see a problem in the fact that a software license tries to deal with this issue because the hardware uses free software (software licensed under the GPL which clearly states that it is designed to protect freedom) but deliberately satisfies only the letter and not the spirit of the license. This is a clear indication that the license should take measures against bully players.
Edited 2006-10-25 17:18
A software license (like the GPL 3.0) is chosen by the copyright holder(s) of the software to reflect the use they allow for their software. I you want the software you write to not be locked down like in the Tivo case, choose GPL3, otherwise, choose another license. As a user of the software, GPL3 licenced software guards my freedoms the most, it guarantees that I can modify the source, compile and RUN it on the hardware I could run the original on.
The problem here is legal and of reality.
In the minds of the kernel developper they own there code. They can do with it as they wish.
The problem is reality disagree with them , under the GPL , wich none of them own or control , you have to respect the demand and requirement of the license. The opinion and whants and unwritten rule of the linux kernel project DONT exist and DONT mather at all.
Some Linux Kernel developper have been brainwashed into thinking that the FSF is there enemy and that they are a political entitity. They also think that by doing nothing everything will stay the same , they are in there own hubris.
The GPL is the legal license of the Linux kernel and of all software under it.
This programmers wrongly think they own GPL code and that they can close it. You got the wrong license for that kind of actions.
The GPL is the legal license of the Linux kernel and of all software under it.
This programmers wrongly think they own GPL code and that they can close it. You got the wrong license for that kind of actions.
*sigh* I can’t believe I’m going to let myself get sucked into this, but you’re wrong, the kernel developers do, in fact, own their code. They hold copyright over it, it certainly wasn’t assigned to FSF. The GPL provisioning gives users the right to use, modify and distribute the software but it doesn’t transfer ownership. You can fork it, rename it, make it do something else, but as long as it contains GPL’d code that code still belongs to the original author(s).
Therefore a GPL violation is meaningless unless the kernel developers choose to pursue legal action. It’s not for either you or RMS, or anyone else that hasn’t contributed code to the kernel, to wag your finger and decide for them. Since there has been no action to date, and many of the key developers have already indicated they have no issue with the Tivo factor, and other developers have not spoken up, I don’t see where the problem is.
I could take the kernel myself, modify it, close it, package it and sell it as a proprietary product. I’d be clearly violating the GPL, but there’s nothing you or the FSF can do about it other than raise the issue. The onus is on the developers themselves to protect and enforce their copyright if they choose to. Nobody else has the legal standing in any jurisdiction I’m aware of to enforce it for them. This is one of the primary (claimed) reasons RMS has for requiring GNU contributors to assign shared copyright to the FSF, in order to simply license enforcement, but that effect doesn’t extend to the kernel since Linus did not implement a similar requirement.
You’re sort of underscoring the point the developers are making here. Linus selected the GPL, the kernel developers agreed to provide code under the same license. RMS’ interpretation of right or wrong with the GPL implementation is irrelevant despite the fact he authored the license. It’s the copyright holders that have the ultimate say upon enforcement and they alone have the ability to seek legal remedies.
Fortunately for all involved, Linus had the foresight to remove the “or later” clause from the GPL v2 boilerplate text, no doubt much to RMS’ chagrin and really making this whole debate pointless anyways.
So basically , according to you :
– Copyright owner can break the GPL.
– Its LT vs RMS.
– GPL violation dont exist when the copyright owner give permission to break the GPL , because the GPL is not a license , its a copyright ownership paper.
Acording to the court , past ruling , and precedent :
Your wrong …
You might want to look up what happen when copyright owner try to take ownership and control over is contributed GPL code and enforce new rules and requirement. Let me summarize it for you : The GPL won.
The problem here is not that they can do what they whant with there code , wich they can , they cant do it under the GPL. Because when you break the license the is know consequence even for the copyright owners.
“The problem here is not that they can do what they whant with there code , wich they can , they cant do it under the GPL. Because when you break the license the is know consequence even for the copyright owners.”
Now i just need you to clarifi this for me…
If i were to use the gpl for my own code that i wrote all by my self i couldn’t switch the licens? That doesnt sound like something you could expect in the real world. But it could be me misunderstanding what your trying to say.
“If i were to use the gpl for my own code that i wrote all by my self i couldn’t switch the license?”
No , you can dual/multi license to another license. GPL code stay GPL.
“That doesnt sound like something you could expect in the real world.”
Ok , lets entertain your fabulation , point to me the project that switched away from GPL , that switched license retroactively on all its code.
But specifically you cant say : Discard the GPL I am giving you the permission.
“But it could be me misunderstanding what your trying to say.”
No , the problem is you dont know what your talking about at all.
You do sure pretend to know it all… Mysql AB seems to do what you say cant be done.
“You do sure pretend to know it all… ”
Nope. But I do know perfectly and accurately a great deal about this subject.
“Mysql AB seems to do what you say cant be done.”
Lets see ( seems to me they dont , but lets entertain your fabulation some more ) :
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/
“MySQL AB provides its software (database server, connectors, tools) under a number of flexible licenses”
In reality , they are Multi licensing and distributing there code under the GPL too , they are not telling there user to disregard the GPL , because they give them the permission to do so , they do the legal thing and offer other legal options.
I like this one too :
“At MySQL AB we believe in open source software. We encourage everyone to publish open source software under the GPL License.”
If you wanna try to to mangle their statments you should’nt link to the site where you got it…
“MySQL AB provides its software (database server, connectors, tools) under a number of flexible licenses”
should be:
“For OEMs, ISVs, and VARs who distribute MySQL with their products, and do not license and distribute their source code under the GPL, MySQL provides a flexible OEM Commercial License.”
But your attempt to mangle their statments show a great deal about how much you can be taken serious.
“I like this one too :
“At MySQL AB we believe in open source software. We encourage everyone to publish open source software under the GPL License.””
Who cares what they encourage..? I pay for not having to use the gpl then why would I? If they were serious about it they wouldnt use the multi licensing as you call it.
No , the first line is what mather they offer multi-licensing , including the GPL. I quoted the licensing page , exactly , its you who mangle and try to Hamsterize and Spin that wheeelll of yours.
THAT is even a precedent that show that the GPL is not to be screwed with.
“No , the first line is what mather they offer multi-licensing , including the GPL. I quoted the licensing page , exactly , its you who mangle and try to Hamsterize and Spin that wheeelll of yours. ”
I wasnt the one who did’nt c/p it all so it made me look good… But it just proves that you arent someone who can be taken serious…
“THAT is even a precedent that show that the GPL is not to be screwed with.”
Well you just wanna show you don’t really have a clue don’t you… If i were to licens my code on the gpl i can change it all i want as long as i don’t use other peoples code. That is my right as the copyright owner. Nomather if you like it or not. What i cant do is change the licens on what people allready uses.
Now i’m sure you did’nt think long enough to see that your actually saying you cant close bsd licens software aswell..
I think Alan Cox’s comment described it best…
“Linux is not and never has been an FSF project. I would say the majority of the kernel developers don’t buy the FSF political agenda. Linus likewise chose the license for the pragmatic reason it was a good license for the OS, not because he supported the GNU manifesto.”
These Linux developers and the FSF have different goals (“Open Source” vs. “Free Software”), so it is not surprising that when the FSF went off to create a new license that the new license doesn’t match the goals of the Linux developers. The Linux developers think that “Tivoisation” is a completely acceptable use of their code and the FSF is hellbent against it. There isn’t much middle ground. So, Linux will be GPLv2, and the GNU/FSF stuff will be GPLv3. If you disagree with the Linux developers and feel Linux should be GPLv3 … tough. Since the Linux developers didn’t assign the copyrights to the FSF, it is their decision, not yours, and not Stallmans. If you feel REALLY strongly, go write a GPLv3 kernel (goes for Stallman too).
Right you are. And it’s not the Linux kernel developers decision to make if the FSF creates a new version of the GPL or not.
The changing legal landscape — remember, there wasn’t DMCA, DRM and siblings when the GPL2 was created — just requires an adaption of the license to enable the goals that the FSF has been vocally advocating from day one. The motives and goals are even explicitly documented for all to see on their homepage — and have been for the last 10 years. Thus i’m really surprised that the Linux kernel developers didn’t see that coming and didn’t get involved earlier if they wanted to have a say. I mean, they should know that neither software nor legal constructs exist in vacuums and that the FSF has been very clear and vocal about their motives and goals with regards to software licences and was bound to adapt their license if changes of the legal situation required it. Therefore the FSF’s stance hasn’t changed that much, it is the legal environment that changed and the Linux kernel developer seem to have missed the changes.
Now, what’s HURD doing?