Torvalds "Pretty Pleased" With Latest GPLv3 295
Novus Ordo Seclorum writes "According to CNet, Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft. He said, 'Unlike the earlier drafts, it at least seems to not sully the good name of the GPL any more.' After his earlier criticism, some had questioned whether such controversies would lead to rifts in the community, especially if the kernel ended up under a different license than the GNU tools. But with the latest revisions, Linus will entertain moving the kernel over to the GPL v3."
Interesting.. (Score:4, Funny)
Slow news day?
Re:Interesting.. (Score:4, Informative)
No, vitally important news for the future of the free/open source software movement day.
The linux kernel is pretty important to (duh) most linux distributions. However, so is a load of Free Software Foundation-controlled stuff, not least the compilers, make tools, standard C libraries, and shedloads of userland utilities from the "ls" command through to EMACS... plus the GPL license itself. If the two factions fall out then it can only be bad for Linux and other FOSS.
Slighty satirized and only approximately true capsule summary of the problem:
The FSF wants - quite badly - to move to the GPLv3 to prevent "TiVOization" (using GPL code in a hardware device but with DRM-type tricks that stops users changing the code) and, more recently, to stop future Novell/Microsoft FUD campaigns.
Linus and other linux kernel contributors want - quite badly - to keep the GPLv2 because:
The pro-FSF lobby countered these concerns with:
At which point ISTR Linus (or someone claiming to be he) said a Bad Word on Groklaw and PJ made him go and stand in the Naughty Corner until he had learned to control his potty mouth :-)
Then when the new draft of the GPLv3 appears it turns out that although the FSF have stuck to their guns they have been listening and have done some substantial re-drafting.
If Linus and the FSF are talking nicely again it can only be good news - even if Groklaw's swear box takings go down.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This all sounds moot, though. If the Linux Kernel is licensed as GPLv2 (with no additional wording), and there is provision for changing it, then Linus' opinion wasn't even needed? Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
This all sounds moot, though. If the Linux Kernel is licensed as GPLv2 (with no additional wording), and there is provision for changing it, then Linus' opinion wasn't even needed? Or am I missing something?
No, it is moot. Some people just continue to insist that Linus has to give his stamp of approval if this license is to take off. If he won't, they mean that the FSF should just throw it away and forget about it. And this despite the fact that Linus can hardly move the kernel to GPLv3 even if he wanted to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wondered when you would show up.
If someone wants to use a new license that he doesn't like then somehow attempts to wrangle control from him so that it could be used
We've been though this before. I don't agree that GPLv3 userspace software running on top of a GPLv2 kernel will "wrangle control from him" or "add restrictions to the kernel".
I don't think any of his complaints were based around the intended goals of the GPLv3 but the way they were implemented.
On the contrary, I think it is pretty clear that he opposed the DRM part from the start, and that this microscopic softening w.r.t. GPLv3 is in part caused by a watering-down of that section. Preventing DRM to restrict the freedom of GPL-covered software was one of the primary goals, so I think i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, Stallman is a visionary. Linus is just a great engineer.
Stallman vs Linus (Score:3, Interesting)
Stallman is standing up for his ideals. Linus has no ideals whatsoever, he just want things to work, and doesn't give a rat ass about the so called ideals.
That's right.
In other words, Stallman is a visionary. Linus is just a great engineer.
It's true that Stallman is a visionary, but Linus is not a great engineer.
The early versions of Linux, that contained a lot of Linus's code, were absolute crap.
Sure, Linus can write code, but he can't engineer his way out of a wet paper bag.
But he's a great manager, and Linux succeeded due to Linus's leadership abilities,
not due to his engineering abilities.
Stallman, on the other hand, is a great engineer.
Emacs and GCC are testiments to this fact.
But Stallman is a lousy manager, based on what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:4, Informative)
Aha! Thank you for making this connection for me. I was having trouble giving a damn about this whole issue, but now I see it makes a huge difference not just for consumer electronics but for the PC hardware I'm going to (be forced to) buy in the next five years. Companies that make hardware impossible to use from open software should not be allowed to leech off GPL'ed code to do so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you seriously suggesting that all objections to the GPL are g
It may be possible, if (Score:5, Interesting)
> which means that it's going to be very, very, very hard indeed to ever upgrade the license
> of the Linux kernel, no matter how necessary.
Not necessarily. It all depends on how code in the kernel is licensed. There are several files in the kernel that are "GPL 2 or above" and several that are MIT/BSD licensed and several that are LGPL.
Currently, the kernel is "GPL 2 only" because mixing a single "GPL 2 only" file with any of the other licenses mentioned above makes the whole kernel "GPL 2 only".
The key question is: What percentage of the code is GPL 2 only? (I believe LWN.net did an analysis a few months back, but unfortunately I can't find a reference. Does anyone have one?)
If the percentage of GPL 2 only code is small (say 5%) and it's in a noncritical area or can be rewritten quickly or relicensed by the original authors (i.e. they're still around like Linus is) or replaced with other sources like the FreeBSD code or the Solaris kernel (when it goes GPLv3), then changing over to GPL v3 (or at least GPL 2 or above) should be fast.
But even if this were the case, I wouldn't expect any immediate changes. The GPL v3 needs to be out in the field and kernel developers need to feel comfortable with it and see advantages for it (e.g. Solaris-Linux code sharing) before they'd even consider a switch. That could take a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
out of interest... why? From a private developer's perspective, I really don't see the difference, unless you are trying to submarine patents in OS code (unlikely)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think parent's question is why the FSF assumes that everybody who has written a GNU utility and assigned it to the FSF necessarily agrees with the FSF on everything including the revised GPLv3.
I suspect at least a few utility developers agree with Linus that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it - and especially don't fix it in braindead ways".
Since the FSF seems to want to cripple one of the five major Linux distros (SUSE) to "punish" Novell for making a pointless and irrelevant deal with Microsoft (which is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not forget the FSF style concern 0:
0. It IS broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Linux isn't a derivative work of GNU and GNU isn't a derivative work of Linux. They can use different licenses without a problem. You can use GNU code on Windows legally. You can use proprietary software on Linux legally. The case where they are both using similar licenses (GPL2 vs GPL3) is no different.
Even if you are talking about culture and not law, there still isn't a problem. People use the LGPLed GNOME o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A better analogy would be if you were a musician who downloaded an album, studied the songs, then starting to play concerts using those songs and forbidding your public to make recordings.
If you've beneffited
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse psychology? "Torvalds 'Outraged' With Latest GPLv3" wouldn't be interesting.
Obligatory... (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new here.
(Every day is a slow news day to certain
Move over? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that the GPLv3 will automatically relicense most of the GPLv2 software out there
No, it won't. For the main distribution of a certain package to become GPLv3, the maintainer has to explicitly change the license. The difference from those projects that are "GPLv2 only", is that "GPLv2 or later" can be relicensed by other people than the copyright holder. If you give me a piece of software licensed under the "GPLv2 or later", I can redistribute under "GPLv3 or later" even if you hold the copyright to the software.
Re:Move over? (Score:5, Informative)
Surely? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mixing GPL versions... (Score:3, Informative)
The kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2. Some terms allow for it to be "v2 or later", meaning someone can use the code in a GPLv3 kernel. Software companies could also go to dual-licensing and offer it under v2 or v3. Then you could use that code in either a GPLv2 kernel or a GPLv3 kernel. You can't have a part-v3, part-v2 kernel because of license incompatibilities. Thus a kernel would be offered as either pure v2 or pure v3.
No - the kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2 BUT it is not entirely comprised of GPL v2 only code. 40% of the Linux kernel has the "or later versions" message intact and can be trivially relicensed.
How much of the Linux kernel is GPLv2? [blogspot.com]
GPL v2 and GPL v3 code can be compiled into a single entity without issue. What you can't do is take some GPL v2 code, rewrite part of it and call it GPL v3. Aggregation of code has never been an issue.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re: (Score:2)
If it is *exclusively* licensed under GPLv3 (well, or higher) then yes. If all the current kernel code said "GPLv2 and higher", they could do that. However, since a lot of code is licensed under GPLv2 only, the GPLv3 code is incompatible with the GPLv2's l
Re: (Score:2)
The "or later" part is an option for those using the code, not the authors. If it's v2 or later, you, as a user, have the option to use v2 or v3 at your discretion. If it were changed to v3, then you no longer have the option to use v2. Hence, code that's "v2 or later" doesn't automatically become v3 and the authors can't just change it to v3 without every contributors' permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So long as either the files or portions of code that were originally marked as being "under v2 or later" are still so marked, then yes you can include them in code that contains files or portions under v3; but the "v2 or later" parts stay "v2 or later": they don't automatically become v3.
GPL v3 is Novell-cide (Score:2)
Everybody but Novell gives the go-ahead for GPL v3 in the Linux kernel:
-Novell says no: They have to re-write/back port everything new in the Kernel for SUSE
-Novell says yes: Novell must reneg on the "Deal with the Devil" and get sued by MS
or
-Novell says yes: Novell get sued by the FSF for not reneging on the "Deal with the Devil".
Either way it's loose, loose, loose for Novell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They could just buy a wrench and tighten that fucker up.
Misleading summary? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Misleading summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
How are these significantly different?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would MUCH easier, and just as useful to switch from "GPLv2" to simply "GPLv2 or later". This would require less permissions (as chunks are already 'gplv2 or later') and would offend far fewer people.
For example, Linus himself. He doesn't have "switch" to GPLv3, he merely has to agree to give people the choice. "GPLv2 or later" means it still, and always will be, av
Linus!?!?!? (Score:3, Funny)
I had to look twice to make sure this wasn't April first come early.
Bruce
They have no idea.. (Score:4, Funny)
1. Invite the Finn to a sauna that's been heated to a 120C
2. Help him down a case of beer and 2 litres of vodka while enjoying the sauna for 4-5 hours
If you are still able to make your case after this, you will find the Finn much more appreciative of your point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the sauna temp is 120C, he won't be making much of a counterargument after being boiled alive for 4-5 hours.
Maybe you're thinking hot tub in which case that'd be true. I've regularly used a (dry) sauna and the ambient temperature gets over 100 celcius. The reason why you don't boil alive is because of a number of things. First, you sweat a lot and the evaporation of your sweat cools you down and necessitates drinking tons of water. Second, that's the temperature of the ambient air. If you wave your arms around in it, you're likely to get scalded a bit but if you keep still, the air immediately around the su
Most interesting scenario is Linux + Solaris (Score:5, Insightful)
One immediate question I would have is whether he would leave in the "or any later version" clause this time or remove it again. If he does that we might have to go through this whole mess again in another 15 years, but maybe that's the idea.
Linux as GPL3 only becomes of true importance if OpenSolaris also becomes GPL3. If that is the case, there could be an immediate and dramatic improvement seen in both projects as the code starts to flow both ways. OpenSolaris could start to take advantage of the driver code in Linux (or at least, use it to make the code Solaris would need) and Linux could start working on goodies like Dtrace support. Mutually beneficial, and everyone wins.
Of course, there is no reason beyond speculation to think Solaris will use GPL3. The situation is potentially very exciting, but it would require both Solaris and Linux to move from their current license and neither decision will be made lightly.
Fingers crossed...
Re:Most interesting scenario is Linux + Solaris (Score:5, Interesting)
"or any later version" insanity (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the clause is just that, a clever scheme to teach people to read carefully. I was once in a situation where an employment contract had a "or any later version" clause. The contract was contested and found to be in fact i
Re:"or any later version" insanity (Score:4, Informative)
Why is it insane? There is nothing potentially dangerous about it.
Your code doesn't become 'GPLv3 or later' when GPLv3 comes out, it STAYS 'GPLv2 or later', meaning it is now available to someone who wants to use it under either the v2 or v3 licenses.
Thus there is no danger that at some point in the future someone won't be able to use your code with all the rights you assigned to it when you licensed it v2 or later.
However, if someone down the road likes v5, and starts up a GPLv5 project and they want to use your code, they can. Because at that point your code will be available under v2, v3, v4, and v5.
Thus the absolute WORST case of releasing your code as 'GPLv2 or later' is that one day the FSF will release a license you don't like, and people using it will still be allowed to use your code.
IE, the worst case is that future users will have MORE rights to use your code than they have today, if the GPL were to become even less restrictive (e.g. became, say, a BSD-like license). After all if the GPL gets more restrictive people can ALWAYS use your code with ALL the rights of GPLv2.
I think for nearly all of us, that is pretty much a non-issue. The odds the GPL will become less restrictive than v2 is practically zilch. And even if it did, no harm could come to people who want to use our code.
Re:"or any later version" insanity (Score:4, Interesting)
1) An overly permissive future license allows other people to use and distribute your code in their product without providing source or with restrictions you find repugnant. Not very likely, but consider if the FSF got itself sued for software patent violations or something and Microsoft actually obtained control of it.
2) A more restrictive future license allows other people to use and distribute your code in their product without allowing you to use their code without those new restrictions. This is much more likely.
I don't think it's insane for the FSF to recommend the "and all future versions" clause; they trust themselves, after all. But I don't see why anyone else should.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Most interesting scenario is Linux + Solaris (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you have strong feelings that the current version of the GPL is the only right one, it's an easier life for everyone to leave in the 'or any later version' language. I don't agree with everything the FSF does, and in particular I think that trying to retrospectively punish Novell for their patent deal with Microsoft is a bad idea, but in the wider interests of free software we should try to keep in step with the FSF and not have a proliferation of different GPL versions making code sharing awkward.
Re: (Score:2)
License upgrades by proxy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
About time! (Score:5, Insightful)
But, at least now it's obvious he's reading and comprehending. He may still disagree with it, and I disagree with him, but it looks like they're talking now.
Which is more than I can say about the last round of flamewars... Last time, he honestly sounded like a Slashdotter who hadn't bothered to RTFA, just repeating the same unfounded arguments, some of which were blatantly wrong to anyone who actually read the license...
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they were "blatantly wrong" if you haven't read it?
In any case, his DRM fears were most certainly reasonable given the early drafts. If you didn't bother to even read the summary, the FSF changed
"Pretty Pleased", but... (Score:5, Funny)
- RG>
And... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this is not a troll. I am convinced that the only reason Sun was considering this is because the Linux project was not. There is no chance in hell they want to see any of their kernel code end up inside the Linux kernel.
*Ahem* (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, there are some things you cannot do due to this being a user-space implementation, but for many purposes it is (will be once it reaches 1.0) sufficient.
this just means he's not puking on it (Score:3, Informative)
Great News (Score:2)
Re:Bribed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Torvalds: "The current draft makes me think it's at least a possibility in theory, but whether it's practical and worth it is a totally different thing," he said. "Practically speaking, it would involve a lot of work to make sure everything relevant is GPLv3-compatible even if we decided that the GPL 3 is OK."
Basically, GPLv3 makes it go from "impossible" to "maybe someday". I doubt Linux is moving off of GPLv2 a
Re:Bribed. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ken [wikipedia.org].
whooops. (Score:2)
whoops. Preview, preview..
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bribed. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:viral (Score:5, Informative)
Re:viral (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if you were a company that GPLv3 punished, then you'd be punished when dealing with these new kernels, even though most of the kernel didn't have a GPLv3 specific license.
Now, this assumes that Linus wants GPLv3, which so far he does not. If he doesn't want GPLv3, somebody could attempt to sneak in some patches/new code with a GPLv3-only license, and if Linus put them into the kernel, then the kernel would then have the same GPLv3 baggage. But I suspect that Linus would reject any such patches for now, and if one was snuck in, it would probably be removed if found later.
In any event, even if the kernel remains non-GPLv3, we may find some commonly used packages going GPLv3-only -- and I'm thinking of things like gcc, binutils, fileutils, textutils, etc. If this happens (and it sound very likely), then anybody who doesn't want to be restricted by the GPLv3 restrictions will not be able to distribute updated versions of these packages. In the short term, this won't be such a big deal, but in the long term, it certainly will be.
I appreciate what the FSF is trying to do with GPLv3, but I suspect that it's going to cause the `free software movement' a lot of pain, as companies will probably try to move to BSD from Linux (and even then they won't really get away from the GPL, as the BSDs use gcc as their compiler. Perhaps there will be another gcc fork, with the official GPLv3 version and the fork still being GPLv2 or GPLvwhatever?)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't really matter, because if Linus wanted to, he could start releasing changes to the Linux kernel under GPLv3 (and it specifically said GPLv3) -- so the old code would be under GPLv2 (or really, whatever version of the GPL you preferred, because unless you specifically say what version of the GPL applies, people can pick whichever version of the GPL they want. Read section 9 from the GPL [gnu.org] for more on that) and the new Linus provided code would be GPLv3, with all the baggage that entails.
Not really, because the kernel is explicitly states it is licensed under version 2. To quote the COPYING file:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Bits and pieces are GPLv2 or later, though
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:viral (Score:4, Insightful)
People who try to scare you when saying that the GPL is viral are the same ones who put patents over their code and resell you their tools for a fee.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And this is viral how? Whether you believe the GPL is viral or not, the fundemental difference is that commerical licenses don't require you to distribute your indepedently written source code even if it's based on their libraries. As far as fees are concerned, many allow you to use their libraries simply because you paid for the tool with no
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the same way that commercial licences do not require you to distribute your independently developed code, GPLed software does not require that you use it at all. If you are not willing to follow the license I choose to put on my code, then simply do not use it.
The usage of the word 'viral' in this context is nothing but fud-speak.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So who is more powerful? (Score:5, Funny)
Stallman, obviously, is a half-Human cleric of Lathander and a Divination wizard, while Linus is a pure Gnome Enchanter wizard and has some powerful equipment.
Sure, Linus has more powerful spells, being a pure class, but, IMHO, Stallman is more powerful because he usually carries the initiative and can cast Silence, which really screws up other casting types.
Re:So who is more powerful? (Score:4, Funny)
Both and neither (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I would add another real-world genius: Eban Moglen, the Columbia University law professor who is the legal brains behind the GPL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen [wikipedia.org]
Re:Both and neither (Score:4, Insightful)
The only projects I've ever released under a GPL license are projects that I inherited under a GPL license. I'm reluctant to "give away" my code under a license that takes away (or at least reserves for me) rights from other people that may want to use it -- I'd like to really give it away, no strings attached, or to actually sell it. The GPL's it's-yours-but-you-can-only-like-I-say seems a lot like giving a "gift" to someone that you really bought for yourself.
I think I understand the motivation behind the GPL (but I could be wrong), and I'm not angry that other people use it, but to me it seems like a distasteful compromise between giving and keeping, and that sort of license holds no interest for me at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There. The second time you got it right. One of the reasons why FOSS works so well is that people are mostly programming to their interests. Big companies can pay people to do things that they don't really care about, but it's generally not as high a quality o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL does not take away or reserve any rights whatsoever.
Rather, the GPL grants people rights that they would not otherwise have, subject to specific conditions.
It's true that it doesn't grant them as many rights as (say) the BSD license, and has different strings attached, but it's misleading to talk of it taking away rights. Just say that you don't
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to start a discussion about whether HURD is a good idea or not, but it is certainly not a Unix kernel. Unix is just a possible personality.
Re:The anti-tivo clause looks pretty useless to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing, but in five or ten years that kernel would have little or no use beside some historic value if the kernel goes GPLv3.