Slashdot Log In
Linus Says No GPLv3 for the Linux Kernel
Posted by
Hemos
on Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:08 AM
from the the-battle-wages-on dept.
from the the-battle-wages-on dept.
HenchmenResources writes "Late Wednesday a posting from Linus Torvalds appered on the the Linux Kernel Mailing List. In it Linus states that the Linux Kernel will remain under the GPLv2. Types Linus,"The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself.""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linus Says No GPLv3 for the Linux Kernel
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 415 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
What v3 does he mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is that thing about developers having to turn over their private keys? I don't think anything that stupid is even considered for GPLv3.
I wish there would be a rational and friendly discussion. Is that too much? Have we come thus far?
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:5, Informative)
It's also why the Linux kernel is much more popular among developers than HURD (because people and companies can contribute to it and still keep their copyright).
Re:Which is why HURD will never see the light of d (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.bannination.com/)
Re:Which is why HURD will never see the light of d (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://etherplex.org/)
"Which is why HURD will never see the light of day in any substantial fashion. Philosophy doesn't yield code."
If you simply want to argue over the semantics of whether or not philosophy yields code or people yield code, read no further; I have nothing to say to you. The point of this post realtes to substance, not semantics. (And before you stop reading, ask yourself this: what is philosophy without people?) Your second statement is clearly a generalization you're drawing from your first, and in incorrect one, at that. As GP alluded to, the GNU in GNU/Linux is all the utilities you use on the command line, up to and including the command line itself, and is under the copyright of the FSF. I haven't done recent SLOC counts on GNU vs. Linux, but I would be surprised if they weren't at least comparable - I'd expect that GNU actually has produced substantially more source code (that is used all the time by all manner of users and developers) than the Linux kernel itself these days. Back in 2002 [dwheeler.com], RedHat 7.1 was studied and though the kernel was the largest single body of source (~2.5 million lines), there are GNU programs all over that quickly outstrip the kernel in sheer volume of source: gcc alone is huge (~900k lines), but emacs (~600k lines) and glibc (~600k lines) are both quite large as well. Those are only three GNU programs, the directory of FSF software [fsf.org] contains (as an estimate) hundreds, including the Hurd itself.
Indeed, philosophy is a manner of viewing of the world and is expressed not by some abstract theoretical paper you write, but in how you choose to live and contribute your work to others. In this sense, philosophy is very much responsible for yielding code - do you honestly think that without the philosophical buy-in of its contributors, free software would be anything today?
Re:Which is why HURD will never see the light of d (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://mistersanity.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 29, @04:42PM)
> with both individuals and companies because it is more flexible (from a copyright
> standpoint) than HURD.
No.
Linux is more popular than HURD because at certain critical points in history it was "working" and "ready" for definitions of "working" and "ready" that could not really be applied to HURD at the time. Basically, Linux was in the right place at the right time. HURD never showed up to the party, and there was a licensing lawsuit connected with BSD at a particularly critical point in time which left it just a little behind in just the wrong ways at just the wrong time, allowing Linux to get "ahead" in terms of mindshare and popularity in the developer community. Consequently, there was a several-month time window, at a particularly important time in history (right about when a lot of college undergrads were first getting net access) when if you wanted a freely-available, freely-modifiable, freely-redistributable operating system, Linux was _the_ obvious choice. That gave it a leg up, got a lot of people involved with improving it, and made it the leading and most popular free OS. Nothing has yet managed to unseat it from that position.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the FSF's policies haven't hampered HURD development. They likely have. What I'm saying is that that is not the key important reason why Linux is ahead of HURD (both in terms of popularity and development cycle). The key reason is because Linus had working, usably complete code at an important time when the FSF (in terms of a kernel) did not.
If the timing had worked out differently, the HURD might have been in the leading position, in spite of the FSF's (admittedly rather strict) copyright policies. It is notable that a number of the FSF's *other* projects, despite said policies, are leading implementations in their respective niches, because those projects were finished to the degree they needed to be and working to the degree they needed to be when they needed to be. Emacs for instance was there enough and working enough (for _most_ of the folks who wanted an Emacs, albeit not for Lucent) that XEmacs is just another, somewhat less popular alternative, rather than completely eclipsing Gnu Emacs as Linux has done to HURD.
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.jprl.com/)
Don't contributors assign copyright to some type of Linux foundation?
No. Linux kernel contributors retain their own copyright. This is frequently considered to be a good thing, as it means that no single group has copyright over everything, which means that no single group can change the license to e.g. BSD and start selling a proprietary version of Linux.
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 03 2002, @10:53AM)
At least with the FSF model, it's not 100% trust based; at least last time I checked they do sign a contract with the assigner saying that they'll distribute the code under a free license or the copyright reverts, or something along those lines. I can't remember the exact wording.
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
On the other hand, if somebody set up a non-profit to create the nextest bestest portal application, there's a real chance that the non-profit org could go bankrupt, regardless of the sincerity of their intention. Or the org could undergo a leadership change and a change of philosophy. If you had assigned your code to them, it could easily wind up in a proprietary commercial application. The GPL would protect existing releases, but anybody who held all the copyrights could update and re-release under a proprietary license.
Even if the terms of assignation were written to preclude this, such provisions might not survive bankruptcy.
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.myspace.com/chrisstovall)
It sounds like his gripe with the GPLv3 is that it is imposing restrictions on what modifications or contributions can be made, which is not the same agnostic view as in previous versions.
The idealist (RMS) and the engineer (Linus) are definitely at a point of contention on this issue...it'll be interesting to see what happens.
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.usermode.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 04 2005, @07:28PM)
Welcome to the wonderful world of GNU!
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.xenoveritas.org/ | Last Journal: Monday September 24, @04:04PM)
He misinterpreted part of the GPLv3. The private key section says that if private keys are required for the code to function (in other words, your program will only load signed code) than you must make available a means to generate the signed code. The theory here is that certain hardware devices (*cough*TiVo*cough*) use GPLed software, but make it impossible to actually modify and run that software on their hardware device. In order to allow people to make changes and actually use those changes, you have to make available any private keys required to make the code actually run.
So if Mr. Torvalds has a private key that he uses to sign code, he is under no obligation to release that key to the public assuming that an end user can build and run the code without requiring the private key. You only have to release your private key if a third-party build of the software will not run without being signed by that key.
Now, another common misinterpretation that came up at the GPLv3 launch was that this meant that if you had set up your system to require signed code that you would have to make your private key available. This isn't the case. The only requirement is that a third party must be able to build and run the system without your private key. If this requires them to generate their own private key, that's perfectly acceptable.
If a GPLv3ed program cannot run without a specific private key, that private key must be made available. That's all the license says. Developers are not required to disclose private keys that they use to sign code.
Re:What v3 does he mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://lawpoop.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 28 2004, @06:51PM)
This simple, clear statement should be at the beginning. I think if you argue about this in the future, you would help your case to lead with this, and then back it up afterwards.
Re:How to force disclosure of private keys (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.xenoveritas.org/ | Last Journal: Monday September 24, @04:04PM)
Nice try, but it wouldn't work. You don't have legal rights to Linus' key. Section 12 states that if you cannot legally meet the obligations of the license (in this case, giving out Linus' key), you cannot distribute the code at all.
Since you can't force Linus to give up his key (it's under his copyright, and there's no obligation for him to give it up under the GPLv3), you simply can't distribute your embedded device to anyone with the GPLv3ed software included. Doing so would be a violation of the GPLv3.
The only time that you would have to give up a key is if you distribute the code in such a way that a key is required for custom modifications to work. Trying to do so using a key you don't have rights to falls prey to Section 12, meaning you can't distribute the software at all.
DRM, private keys (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 06 2006, @01:50PM)
I think he's thought it though, and I think the decision makes sense. No one says you have to increment from GPLv2 to GPLv3, it is at your option. RMS make the license more restrictive, too restrictive, therefore Linus said no.
Re:DRM, private keys (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't see how this is a story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.benhirsch.name/)
Well, this is how it goes: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday December 06 2004, @10:11AM)
1) Because the GPL license can optionally include the statement that it's covered by the GPL and/or any later version.
2) Because a copyright holder can relicense, dual-license and in general put any conditions he or she wants on their copyrighted work, including multiple different sets of conditions (licenses).
What you are asking is akin to saying "If someone lends a book to me on a set of conditions, how can they be allowed to lend it to someone else on different ones?".
If it can be, why can't I take it and license it with a BSD-style or completely closed source license?
Because you don't own the copyright.
I don't get it... (Score:2, Redundant)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 22 2006, @04:38PM)
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it.
Private signing keys? I must have missed that in the GPLv3 discussion so far. What on earth is he talking about?
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 06 2006, @01:50PM)
DRM clause I guess?
"Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output."
http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft [fsf.org]
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 22 2006, @04:38PM)
Is Linus on crack?
Re:Wasn't this already covered? (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly.
And Linus's point is that that makes it fundamentally incompatible with other forms of code signing too. The whole "Trusted Computing" thing is just a logical extension of current code-signing practice, you can't ban one without affecting the other.
Example: You want your OS's auto-update mechanism to validate updates against your vendors' private key ? I do. That's how I trust it. Your OS is GPL v3 ? - then your vendor has to publish the keys. Bye bye trust.
Re:Linus does not trust Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linus does not trust Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.axiom-developer.org/)
I rather doubt that. I think he is trying to fight the creation of an environment where free software is either illegal to run or technically impossible to run. Both are quite possible. After all, what good is software with no hardware to run it on? Stallman is right to worry about that point.
Stallman has ALWAYS considered non-free software immoral. He is "leading by example," so to speak. The problem is the hardware side is more difficult to handle, since fab equipment for chips is not a simple or inexpensive proposition.
I don't like the GFDL because of its invariant sections (primarily) and so in that regard I disagree with the approach he and the FSF have taken, but on the whole they seem to be facing up to some very unplesant possibilities and trying to put roadblocks across their ever being implemented. I'm reminded of two Lord of the Rings quotes:
"It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two."
"Those without swords can still die upon them."
Stallman is doing exactly what he has always done - respond to the threats as they become apparent. His approach to patents is another step in the same direction.
To paraphrase a sig I saw somewhere: "it's only paranoia if they AREN'T actually out to get you." Like security, license writers should be paranoid about threats to their intent. It's just too expensive to try hashing things out in court.
Why trust anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Full Text; Lots of MySQL Errors (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.e3servers.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 26 2006, @12:17PM)
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From Linus Torvalds
Subject Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
> someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
> kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
Re:Full Text; Lots of MySQL Errors (Score:5, Informative)
(http://stinerman.livejournal.com/)
I think Linus is mistaken on this point. Nowhere does the GPL v3 say anything about making private keys available. This was hashed over in the previous discussion [slashdot.org]. Now if he still doesn't like some of the terms of the GPL v3, then more power to him. Even then, as other posters have commented, it'd take a small miracle to find every last copyright holder and have them agree to the change in license.
I GNU it! (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing to see here, please move along.
Refusing contributions? (Score:2, Interesting)
Including a GPLv3 licensed parts will require distribution of the derived work (i.e. the kernel) to comply with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 requirements, thus effectively making the whole kernel GPLv3.
~velco
Maybe Linus doesn't LIKE what GPL3 requires? (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday May 30 2005, @10:02AM)
I can tell you that I don't care for several of the provisions. They are VERY anti-business. This license is less free than others because of the new provisions. I predict that the new wording will drive more new projects to BSD style licensing.
Don't get me wrong - I hate DRM just like everyone else, but I think GPL3 goes over-board. It seems more a political statement than a practical license now.
Re:Maybe Linus doesn't LIKE what GPL3 requires? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gridfire.com/)
heh. That depends on what you mean by free:
A) Free as in free to do what you like with. eg, GPLv2 is more "free" in this sense because businesses have more "freedom" to DRM or patent encumber software under this license.
B) GPLv3 has more restrictions in place to guarantee that software licensed under it is not encumbered by patents or DRM restrictions. Thus it guarantees that DRM and patent restrictions don't restrict people "freedom" to use the software.
BSD style is more free in terms of (A) and less free in terms of (B). For example I am "Free" to contribute secretly patented code to your BSD project and then take you to court for patent infringement when you distribute said software. Is that a freedom you intended to grant me or would you actually have preferred to use a more restrictive license after all?
Linus is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
(http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3675.html)
Of course, it's actually GPLv2 or later, because several source files have the "v2 or later" clause.
About the LKML site (Score:2)
(http://www.vanderlee.com/)
Anyone else notice... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/20/226 [lkml.org]
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/23/186 [lkml.org]
GPL weakness: "at your option any other version" (Score:1)
Consider the following scenario: Monopoly Software Co., somehow:
- infiltrates the FSF
- marginalizes its current leadership
- possibly changes the FSF charter
- then, releases GPL version 6, granting MoSoCo full rights to use, modify and sell derivative works, etc
Of course, MoSoCo uses "at [their] option" only this last version of the GPL for all their derivative works, and they make lots of money on the sweat of the open source community, no strings attached.
The crux of the matter resides in the reliance of the license on the benevolence of a variable group of people.
Not sure I understand (Score:1)
The differences between the GPL and BSD mean nothing to me, as far as I know. I deploy Linux and BSD freely at work, and have never heard anything that should keep me from that.
What are the sticking points that a business user should be aware of? As long as the license allows me to freely use the OS or software, why should I care about this debate?
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://gunfire.sourceforge.net/)
- Public domain allows people to do anything they like with your code, including making minor mods and claiming it as all their own work, or making minor mods and selling the result as closed-source code.
- BSD allows reuse of your code or a modified version of your code, in anything (including commercial software), without releasing source, so long as they credit you. In other words you can't claim it as your own work.
- LGPL allows reuse of your code as a component part of a commercial software system - hence its alternative name of "library GPL". You don't need to release the code for anything that uses this code/library. However if you make changes to the LGPL code/library then you must release the changes. Again, credits are required.
- GPL goes a step further. If you use a GPL code/library component as part of your software, then you must also release *all* your software as GPL as well, otherwise you may not use that code/library component. Again, there's the requirement for releasing code and credits.
There's many other licenses, but you get the idea.
There's two different philosophies here that drive this.
The first is the Open Source philosophy (Linus and ESR are the drivers here). This says that if everyone works together, we can build something better than closed source software. But it doesn't invalidate the existence of closed source software - it acknowledges that this only works for mass-market software, so there will always be niches where closed-source is a better choice. Basically their drive is to help people do their jobs more efficiently.
The second is the Free Software philosophy (driven by RMS and the FSF group). This says that the very *existence* of closed-source software is immoral, and anyone using closed-source software (even in niches where no free equivalent exists) is guilty of immorality (RMS says that if no free software exists to do a job, then you should refuse to do that job). Software is therefore created as a moral imperative, rather than as a means to an end of carrying out some task (such as web browsing or word processing).
Grab.
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 26 2005, @07:19PM)
That's simply not true, and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of RMS' position.
What he says is: "If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have." [linuxdevcenter.com]
Which is a different thing altogether.
He is right, surely (Score:2, Troll)
(Last Journal: Thursday January 12 2006, @10:28AM)
Not for the first time, Linux Torvalds is applying a touch to the brakes and suggesting that a little common sense might go a long way. Or that's how I read this, anyway. I guess the ghastly Richard Stallman will just have to continue gnashing and gnuing his teeth. The Linux kernel is absolutely not his kernel.
Just the kernel? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://ghazan.hazara.org/)
I'm primarily concerned with gcc, glibc and the likes. X has its own license that I'm OK with. The rest of the apps are not critical and easily replaceable. gcc glibc and the kernel are damn hard to replace... they exist alone. Others have competitors.
I dont want any of GPLv3 in my system just as I dont want any of SCO code in my system. Maybe the final GPLv3 will be more palatable than it is now.
Are GPL2 and GPL3 compatible? (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://newton.ex.ac.uk/people/rowe)
First the "or later" clauses in some parts of the linux kernel are effectively meaningless unless you are willig to rewrite the other parts from new.
Second, we will split into two incompatible GPL universes (or three if there is such thing as GPL1!) with legacy GPL2, newer GPL3 and some GPL2-or-later. And anybody can modify GPL2-or-later and release the result as GPL2-only.
Share and enjoy!
John
Same old (Score:2, Insightful)
I will sit back and watch this time as well... if history repeats, we will see V3 is the best yet.
As for Linus, he is only human and it seems he is having more difficulty not allowing emotions cloud his opinions as he ages, so his opinion of V3 carries little weight. (And how many of us are better than him?)
Why can't we just use common sense? (Score:1)
(http://nugget.usethis.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 04 2006, @07:24PM)
Look at the GPLv3 draft, section 1, para 1-3 (Score:2)
(http://www.wingedpower.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 09 2003, @07:18PM)
Take a look at the GPLv3 Draft, section 1, para 1-3:
The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source version of a work.
The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
This can be interpretted to mean that if your code is digitally encrypted, say in a source repository, and you have made changes which are specifically there, you will need to include the means to access those custom changes, which means relinquishing your private key or passcode, if that is what you use to access the source code. If you PGP encrypt your source code, you will need to release your PGP key to allow for review of code, etc.
Perhaps that is not the _intent_ of the GPLv3 draft, but it is one interpretation. The wording is too unspecific that it can be twisted or interpretted to mean you need to provide the means to de-encrypt or otherwise give access to the code. If people encrypt their code like that, that is.
It can also be interpretted to mean that if your code contains DRM bits, any in-code encryption, which requires a key/passcode/etc to compile or otherwise function fully, needs to be provided as well. Well, if you built your code with special easter eggs that are only released with your own signed key, then you would need to release your key as well. It is yet another possible interpretation.
I believe the wording is attempting to be highly encompassing. If people chose to encrypt parts of their private source code, and distribute it on a limited basis, they would, if they switched to GPLv3, need to disclose their signing keys and/or change all of their code to remove the need for the keys.
If I had hundreds of thousands of lines of code with various bits that fall under that provision, I would be a bit taken aback as well. It isn't surprising and it is hardly an unexpected response to legal wording, that by trying to be as free as possible to the community, is horribly restrictive to the individual.
It would be nice if a few IP lawyers can look at the draft independantly and see if their interpretations of the draft are all similar.
Still, it is still a draft, so hopefully, it will be updated/changed to be more specific/accurate in it's description of what needs to be released. If the current wording and interpretation IS the intended meaning and interpretation, then it is rather far reaching and may not see widespread adoption.
Widespread adoption within the FSF itself doesn't constitute widespread adoption as the code's licensing/enforcement there was placed under the management and trust of the FSF. :)
Btw, IANAL(I am not a lawyer), so the practical legal interpretation may vary greatly from a layman's interpretation.
Thanks Linus (Score:2)
(http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
Only an idiot woudl do that and open source developers are not idiots.
So who's going to rewrite GNU? (Score:2)
GPLv3 is still in development (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.musicsaves.org/)
--Ajay
cost vs. benefits (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, so it appears Linus has decided that Linux will not be converted over to GPL v3. Lots of people have given philosophical opinions about this, but what if we step back and look at it from a purely practical point of view? What are the costs of converting to GPL v3, and what benefits would it provide to the Linux maintainers and users?
Possible benefits:
That's pretty much it as far as the positives for Linux, as far as I can tell. Now, what about the negatives?
So what is the bottom line? Converting offers basically no major advantage. GPL v2 is just as good as GPL v3 for the purposes of Linux. And, converting is a huge hassle. So, rather than looking at why Linus isn't converting the kernel over, why don't we ask this question: why should it be converted over? There doesn't seem to be any kind of compelling advantage.
My guess is that the same thing is going to apply to lots of other projects. Converting is a great big hassle, and it doesn't offer any big advantage, so people just won't bother.
Up to the contributor, mostly (Score:5, Informative)
If the kernel project guys really do not want GPLv.3-released code in their product because they consider it to be virally too restrictive, then fine. That is their prerogative and they don't need to include it. However, if the author of some highly-desired code really wants v.3 and doesn't care if it lands in the official kernel source tree, then the contrapositive applies: they can't force him to change it, either.
Remember, the GPL in its various forms is not restrictive; it is permissive. It starts with the default copyright restrictions allowing no copying of the code. It then generously gives permission to copy and use it while only asking for a few small acts of good behaviour in return.
The right to choose... (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't see why Linus should not have the right to choose the licens under wich he will release his code.
--
I am probably just an old idealist but so is RMS.
A Law Firm (Score:1)
DUAL LICENCE NOW! (Score:2)
hurd - from my point of view (Score:1)
Re:slashy mc dotted (Score:2, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday May 04 2005, @08:36AM)
Re:Going there with IE is bad apparently (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Thank you Linus! (Score:2)
(http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 02, @12:21PM)
What a load of steaming excrement this is. I don't think I've heard a stupider statement about the GPL even from a Microsoft spokesperson.
Re:Going there with IE is bad apparently (Score:1)
You don't need to resort to stupidity to get people to switch. If Firefox is the better it will sort itself out.. thus the beauty of the free market.
Re:You are wrong. (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://www.the-h.net/)
and
"The _default_ is not to allow conversion."
have completely seperate meanings. One says what the default
'more correct' might be:
"The _default_ is to disallow conversion."
but here it is clear that "not allow" is being used as another way of saying "disallow" (for something as all-or-nothing as "allow", these are synonyms. [synophrases? whatever])
Re:Thank you Linus! (Score:2)
(http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 02, @12:21PM)
OK, lets put this differently, looking at your other comments. Since you don't really state what's wrong here...
DRM isn't a reasonable business model. It is a business model that relies on someone reaching into the equipment I own with their grimy little fingers and telling me what I can and can't do with it.
For example, there is no way that mod chips should be illegal. If I want to muck about with the internal workings of a device I own and make it do something else, that should be perfectly OK.
As Vernor Vinge so eloquently stated it in 'Deepness in the Sky'... (this is a paraphrase, since I don't have the book in front of me) "The worst tyrannies are the ones that require some piece of code in every single device.". It don't matter none if that peice of code is put there by a corporation and it's continued functioning in my box is propped up by stupid laws, or if that piece of code is directly required by the government. The end result is basically the same.
You think *that's* irritating...? (Score:1)
While I have to use IE at work, I good news is I don't get that infantile anti-IE pop-up. The bad news is I don't get anything, other than the following stern message from our internet filtering software:
Access to the site lkml.org is being denied because it is currently listed in the -adult.language- category which is being blocked according to local network access policies.
If you feel this site is listed in the incorrect category, click here to forward it for re-evaluation.
What do those Linux developers get up to?
Re:Thank you Linus! (Score:2)
(http://www.medinheaven.co.uk/)
I'm happy to read that Linus appears to have a lot more sense than the FSF people who are so anti-business that they want to sabotage many of the businesses who embraced open source.
How does it sabotage anything? Businesses can continue to use software under GPL v2, Apache License, MIT Licence etc.
What a rude awakening the GPL3 has the potential to foster, as firms go fleeing back to closed source alternatives in order to comply.
Bizarre. Why would anyone 'flee' to a closed source alternative? If someone decides to rerelease their software as GPL v3, then the business can just fork the GPL v2 version and continue adapting it and using it as normal.
You appear to be under the impression that the GPL v3 is automatically going to change the face of the world's GPL software as opposed to being an additional license (one of many) that people can *choose* from. Just as the 'business friendly' LGPL didn't kill off the GPL v2, neither will the DRM restricted GPL v3 kill off the GPL v2 for those that need to live with DRM.
Phillip.
Re:Going there with IE is bad apparently (Score:1)
That in mind, I hope this offtopic to the offtopic is three lefts. Note the above post.
"Huge flaming annoying banner ads are evil work of the devil and i hate them and you should burn in hell for making me see them."
Then consider the next line:
"No it's okay because it's for Firefox and your browser sucks."
Can we maybe see a connection between this and the topic at hand, especially as regards the "linus vs. richard" speculation this is devolving in to? Because really, this is getting to the heart of people's, or possibly our perception of Linus' at least, ire with the current direction of the GPL and its creators:
Horrible bad evil things are horrible bad and evil and inexcusable, until they are done in the name of something I support, in which case it's not only not-bad but actually very-good, and here's my list of excus^H^H^H^H perfectly valid reasons why.
C.f. "slippery slope."
Re:Thank you Linus! (Score:2)
(http://www.penguinma...ovideos.php?source=7)