Submitted by Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project and a major figure in the open-source programming movement, said Wednesday he’s ‘pretty pleased‘ with changes in a third draft of the GPLv3 released Wednesday. The Linux kernel and many higher-level software packages are governed by the current GPL 2, and Torvalds has expressed strong displeasure with earlier version 3 drafts. After a preliminary analysis of GPL 3, however, some of those concerns are gone or moderated, he said.
a little pressure, usefully applied, and Stallman is in real danger of producing a silk purse from a sows ear.
it may never be good enough for linux to make the switch, but at least it shouldn’t actively hinder linux by being positively rubbish.
a little pressure, usefully applied and finally Linus isn’t completely off base about what the GPL3 does. With luck the linux kernel won’t fall into the trap of going backwards by standing still as they hang on to an old license that the modern legal environment is slowly passing by
“””
a little pressure, usefully applied, and Stallman is in real danger of producing a silk purse from a sows ear.
“””
As a fan of understatement as a rhetorical device, I like the way you consider some of the most prestigeous names in all of FOSS banding together to write a scathing open letter as being “a little pressure”.
I must admit, RMS surprised me. I didn’t think that he would budge. But, in the end, I suspect that he realized that FOSS has become too big for him to be able to ramrod through whatever he wants, and recognized the damage that his cause might sustain if he tried.
I feel rather better about the whole GPLv3 thing today than I did a couple of days ago.
..to rethink his position.
I think he now got to a level of rethinking where he realizes, he should have had a closer look in first place.
To quote Bruce Perens some days ago:
“One thing to Torvalds’ credit: when he’s wrong, he can be convinced of that eventually.”
http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/22/16651
I hardly think a revised draft that Torvalds states he thinks he could now at least consider it, suggests he was wrong, and hadn’t read it hard enough in the first place.
It just means the changes makes it more palatable, and worth considering.
Your twist seems to have a terribly negative co connotation.
I’ve read previous posts by Linus regarding his reservations on the GPLv3, and at no point have I ever seen any sane counter to his issues, just a fanatic on one side of the fence or the other.
no, but it does suggest he should have been more positively involved from the outset rather than refusing to have anything to do with the process save slagging its output in the occasional interview
This may be true.
I read an interview with him some time ago, but I can not remember if he made a comment along the lines of…
“They know where I am if they wish to talk to me” or “I’ve tried contacting them and they do not respond”.
Both of those two comments are starkly different, and suggest two entirely different things about a person, and it is some what puzzling why I can’t remember which he made
(unless of course he’s made both under different interviews)
Though, I do not think it is fair to state he was “slagging it off” he was just providing what appeared to be very reasonable critosisms of it. This for me is 100% reasonable.
Edited 2007-03-31 10:47
Lots of people have spoken about they’re fear of a split in the community and like many of them, I would certainly not welcome such a situation. But unlike those others, I think that a license change alone would not be the cause of such a split.
It seems that Linus is no longer dead set against the GPLv3, even though he still has reservation about the anti DRM clause, and that has got to be a positive point. As for the license being incompatible with v2, well, it looks like that is turning out to be unfounded.
Lets hope they get this sorted out.
what are you smoking? there are NO anti-drm clause. its FUD, it simply does not exist. People can create all the crappy useless drm they want, and use gpl3’ed stuff in the process.
Did you RTFA? me thinks not!
there you would be wrong. I’ve read the drafts, and this article, and there simply are no anti-drm clause. Fact is they can create all the damned drm they want.
If you disagree, please show me where it tells you that you can not develop DRM.
I’m not talking about not developing GPL DRM so please don’t put words in my mouth. What I am talking about is stated in the article as follows –
The fact remains that the FSF wants to stop companies from implementing a locking method to stop people from running modified binary code on ‘they’re’ hardware ( also known as the TiVO clause). This is a form of DRM, no matter how you personally define DRM.
Attacking me for pointing out what is common knowledge is not very nice and now, you have hurt my feelings ;-(
My thoughts on the matter:
Just because it has a clause prohibiting one type of DRM (The Tivo kind), it doesn’t have a “Anti-DRM clause”
That would be like it prohibiting distribution without access to the source code being interpreted like it having an “Anti-distribution clause”.
There’s no anti-DRM clause. There is a clause that forbids using signed binaries of GPL3 programs that would allow distributing the code while impeding running modified versions.
If Nisupu Ltd. wanted to sell a NisuPod that played DRM’d files, they could still use a hypothetical GPL3 Linux, uClibc, Busybox and GTK+ infrastructure to run a proprietary, user-space NisuTunes media player that handled the media DRM, much as RealPlayer does.
Just as Tivo, they would have to provide the source code for all the GPL software, but they would not have to publish the source for NisuTunes if they did not want to. Unlike the Tivo, you would be able to replace all this software with your own, possibly keeping compatibility with NisuTunes, or maybe not.
or they could keep their signed keys private, but allow other people to run apps signed with their own keys to run on the hardware.
…about this draft that would make Linus happy – unless it’s the “Novell escape clause”. And if he likes that then he should just go work for Novell and concentrate on getting Microsoft to sue everyone else who uses Linux. And say goodbye to his little creation in the process.
“I don’t see what’s different…
…about this draft that would make Linus happy – unless it’s the “Novell escape clause”. And if he likes that then he should just go work for Novell and concentrate on getting Microsoft to sue everyone else who uses Linux. And say goodbye to his little creation in the process.”
Yeah, that sounds exactly like Torvalds! He’s been an MS shill all this time! We better all migrate to HURD!!!1
Yeah, that sounds exactly like Torvalds! He’s been an MS shill all this time! We better all migrate to HURD!!!
I didn’t suggest anything of the sort. I DID point out that’s the only substantive change I can see. So the question remains – why is Linux so happy about the new draft? If you can enlighten me, please do.
i won’t rtfa for you, it says why in the article man.
“””
Yeah, that sounds exactly like Torvalds! He’s been an MS shill all this time! We better all migrate to HURD!!!
“””
Now, there’s an idea for an alternate history novel.
Our protagonist, Linus Torvalds, falls through a dimensional rift into a parallel universe in which The Hurd was successfully completed by a team headed by Prichard Zallman, and the Linux kernel never existed.
After speaking his mind a little too publicly in a pub, over a Gnuinness beer (no relation), Linus is charged with sedition, pursued , and eventually captured by one of Zallman’s Freedom Commando Units (FCU) and, after the bothersome but requisite fair trial, is banished to the small island of Znu/Bimini to labor in a factory where Znu/OS CD’s are pressed.
I’m sure there is plenty of room for several more chapters of romance and intrigue, but I’ll let someone else pick it up from there.
Edited 2007-03-29 23:02
If you don’t like the FSF or Richard Stallman’s vision, get your hands off FSF software. I’m sick of anti FSF ludites like yourself.
Dave
It’s called humor. You may want to try to acquire some.
I have plenty of humour, I don’t like people’s attitudes towards the FSF. People might want to learn some respect for an organisation that has made it possible for OSS to be where it is today. I’ve met RMS, I’ve spoken to him, he’s a lovely guy, very passionate about what he believes in, and I’m very thankful that we had a guy like him with the foresight that he had and the guts to devote his life to it.
Dave
Dave,
Get a grip, fella!.
I don’t like *Prichard Zallman’s* vision. The story *is* set in an alternate universe, after all.
But more importantly, if you want to persuade people to your point of view, your strategy is pretty ineffective.
Telling people not to use FSF software and calling them Luddites is hardly helping your cause. Not only is it offensive to the person targeted (Don’t worry. I’ve been reading OSAlert long enough that I’m used to it.), but it makes you, and worse, all FOSS advocates, look bad by association.
Why would anyone want to try FSF copyrighted software as a result of reading your post? Moreover, why would I, or anyone else, have a (positive) change of heart about Stallman or the FSF as a result of reading your post?
If you felt that I was attacking Richard Stallman and the FSF in *this* universe, and wanted to challenge me on it, there are better, more effective, and more persuasive, ways to do it.
Edited 2007-03-30 01:48
“””
unless it’s the “Novell escape clause”
“””
I’ve noticed that you are coming out pretty strongly against the grandfather clause.
I’ve been wondering whether leaving it in or taking it out would be better.
It seems to me that any damage that might result from the Novell/MS deal has, to a great extent, already been done.
Removing the clause would mainly serve to punish Novell, and in the process, cripple their ability to push Linux in the enterprise.
I can’t help but wonder if we would not be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
And it seems that even RMS may be thinking along those lines since it has been included, tentatively, in this draft.
I’m still undecided on this point, but tend to favor leaving it in.
BTW, although Linus was not really all that specific (though those of us who have been following this know pretty much what his original objections were) one thing that he *is* specific about is that he feels that the Novell/MS deal is a better reason than DRM to prompt a new version of the GPL.
You sound pretty down on Linus in this post, but I think that he may end up largely responsible for getting us a GPLv3 that is more effective in the real world than we might have had otherwise.
Anyway, I’ve been generally negative about GPLv3, but this latest draft is encouraging. This is the first time that I have gotten the feeling that Richard is really listening and willing to make actual compromises rather than just cosmetic changes.
This may yet turn out to be “Our License” and not just Richard’s license.
Edited 2007-03-30 03:48
I’ve noticed that you are coming out pretty strongly against the grandfather clause.
Yes, although the FSF say it’s about protecting companies who entered into cross-patent deals not banned, implicitly or otherwise, by the GPL (any version) before that date, and not about protecting Novell. If that’s true, it removes my objection. Not because I want to victimize Novell, but because I don’t think that if you are going to set the terms of a licence, you can give free licence (bad pun) to anyone to violate it.
It seems to me that any damage that might result from the Novell/MS deal has, to a great extent, already been done.
I certainly hope so. I think if Dell are serious about preloading Linux and other companies follow suit, that will pretty much close the door on Microsoft being able to deal with Linux the way they wanted to when they thought up the Microvel deal.
Removing the clause would mainly serve to punish Novell, and in the process, cripple their ability to push Linux in the enterprise.
It’s true that Microsoft might (actually I mean “would”) just find another way to undermine Linux, but the Enterprise Linux target is Redhat, not Novell, which is why they (Microsoft) enlisted the help of the bit player.
BTW, although Linus was not really all that specific (though those of us who have been following this know pretty much what his original objections were) one thing that he *is* specific about is that he feels that the Novell/MS deal is a better reason than DRM to prompt a new version of the GPL.
I would certainly agree with that assessment.
You sound pretty down on Linus in this post, but I think that he may end up largely responsible for getting us a GPLv3 that is more effective in the real world than we might have had otherwise.
Down on him? No, I just don’t understand where, how and why this draft of GPL3 is such an improvement, from his perspective.
From what you’ve said below, I’d like to know more about why you feel better about this draft, too.
Anyway, I’ve been generally negative about GPLv3, but this latest draft is encouraging. This is the first time that I have gotten the feeling that Richard is really listening and willing to make actual compromises rather than just cosmetic changes.
This may yet turn out to be “Our License” and not just Richard’s license.
“””
From what you’ve said below, I’d like to know more about why you feel better about this draft, too.
“””
That’s easy enough. But the answer may not be what you expect.
First, some background. I’m a strong supporter of FOSS and my favored license is the GPL. It has some pretty significant disadvantages at times, and it can be a real PITA when projects with varying licenses try to work together. However, over all, I’d have to say that I like GPL.
However, I do not really have strong feelings about the “improvements” that the GPLv3 is trying to make.
I kinda sorta like the idea of some sort of discouragement of DRM. I kinda sorta like making the patent retaliation more clear and explicit. I kinda sorta like the idea of clearing up the language and making it more international. And I kinda sorta like the idea of blocking future deals like the Novell/MS one.
But, IMO, none of that is worth it if it raises the barrier for cooperation between open source projects even an inch higher than it is now.
Up till now, at least GPL projects could freely trade code with other GPL projects.
But unless everyone is comfortable enough with v3 to consider moving to it, its introduction *will* erect new barriers.
I’m a strong believer in the advantages of OSS as a method of software development.
In the end, I believe that it is the intrinsic strengths of OSS as a software development model that will make it successful, and not manipulations to a license that has already proven itself to work quite well in the real world, even if not perfectly. But those license manipulations *could* hinder the effectiveness of the OSS method in the long term if they make it harder to collaborate.
So, although I do like the some of the changes to the current draft, my main reason for feeling a bit better about things is that it is beginning to look like the final license may actually achieve the consensus that I believe is necessary for it to avoid damaging our efforts.
Does that make sense?
Edited 2007-03-30 15:52
It does, thanks for the clarification.
What’s the source of the linked article? WTF do so called journalists forget to mention their sources regularly?
The biggest thing Linus disagreed with was the limiting of hardware to protect the software. That has now been changed. If you read the draft, you can see that the clause about locking the software inside the hardware now is completely defined by what you can do with the software.
Also, some of you need to realize and accept the fact that it doesnt matter what Linus thinks about the GPLv3 anymore than what I think. The kernel is a conglomeration of code from many sources. It would be impossible to get permission from the entire group to get the license changed to GPL3. so GPL2 is what the kernel will always be at.
While I agree with the fact that Linus took out the clause about updating the license, we see now a problem. The clause was removed because it allowed a third party to dictate the license of the code. So the license could have been changed to something non free and no one would ever be able to stop it. However, now the code is stuck at GPLv2. What happens when GPL3 code is added to the kernel? Or can it even be?
but your very post brings up a problem – linus effectively changed the license without getting permission from the entire group when he removed the clause. So if he did it before, why do you think he cant do it again?
The clause wasn’t removed because it never existed. Linus modified the COPYING file to clarify this point 5 years ago.
If you scan the license texts for most GPL programs, you’ll find that developers include the straight text from the FSF, and this includes a spot at the bottom that recommends the application of the “or later” clause for developers wishing to license under the GPL. It does not automatically apply unless the author/developer specifically states v2 or later.
Linus never did, but because of the above reason, some people saw “or later” in the license texts without understanding the context, so he modified the COPYING file to clear things up. And confused a new round of people in the process.
There are portions of kernel code that are “v2 or later”, but the collective work that comprises the kernel is v2 only, therefore v3 only/or later code could not be combined with it. You can only combine v2 only/or later, and even the “or later” code is governed only under v2, unless it is extracted from the kernel and used independently.
Of course, then you get into the issue of whether the code is a derivative work, which then brings up the question of whether code that is derivative of a v2 only kernel can even be licensed with the “or later” clause, since the GPL has to extend to derived code. I’ll leave that to the philosophers and lawyers to argue about.
Is the novell clause even really needed? After all, the novell deal was made when all linux packages were at gplv2. They still exist even after v3 comes out. Now novell might not be able to upgrade, but that is their problem. They made their bed, time for them to get in it.
“As a fan of understatement as a rhetorical device, I like the way you consider some of the most prestigeous names in all of FOSS banding together to write a scathing open letter as being ‘a little pressure’. ”
what can i say, I am British so i guess it is in the genes.