Could Linux Still Go GPL3?

turnitover writes "Even though Linus has said 'The Linux kernel has always been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid,' LinuxWatch is reporting that Richard Stallman has said it's ultimately up to the developers. And those on the LKML (Linux Kernel Mailing List) are going back and forth about whether to move to GPL3. The sticking point, not surprisingly, is the issue of DRM." In response to the DRM issue Linus wrote: "I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than in software licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes."

Alan Cox's View

[TheRaven64]

Ping Wales is carrying Alan Cox's views on GPLv3 and DRM [pingwales.co.uk].

Re:Fix the headline for God's sake!

[TheRaven64]

Linux is a trademark owned by Linus Torvalds. The trademark is used to describe the kernel whose development is lead by Linus Torvalds. Nothing else can accurately (or legally) be described as Linux.. See this article [pingwales.co.uk] for more information.

Actually, it is Linus's choice

[Chris_Jefferson]

It isn't going to be possible to move the kernel from v2 to v3 without the following happening:

1) Find the contributor of every piece of code in the kernel and pursade them to change to v3
2) Get all the code where either the contributor won't accept that, or you can't find them, and re-write it.

Seeing as a large proportion of the kernel has been written by Linus, by the time all code he wrote, and all the code derived from code he wrote was re-written by someone else, there wouldn't be much of the original kernel left.

Re:Torvalds & Stallman and V3GPL

[mrchaotica]

The trouble with Linus's argument, though, is that he doesn't seem to understand which keys RMS is talking about. GPL v.3 is not about disallowing developers from cryptographically signing the code they write, it's about disallowing the machine from rejecting unsigned code. In other words, RMS wants to make sure that code containing the user's (or third-party) changes can still run.

This issue is irrelevant to Linus or any other developer who uses an open system. It's just designed to keep linux-based devices (like TiVos and cellphones and Linksys routers) from getting DRM designed to stop users from exercising their rights to modify the code running on their machines.

Re:if you don't like GPL 3, fork the license.

[Vellmont]

AFAIK, the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF. That means that if you can't write a derivate work by them without their explicit permission.

This is specifically covered by the free software foundation. The short answer is it's fine, just call the license something else. Here's the text:

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
        You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

        If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.

        Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.

Re:Isn't Linus simply wrong ?

[DoubleDownOnEleven]

Yes, something was missed. Linus wasn't referring to that section of the draft. According to the article, he objects to a part of section 1:

"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. ..."

Torvald says this "is the one that seems to disallow digitally signed binaries (or rather: you can sign the binaries any way you want, but you have to make your private keys available)."

Re:Changing the license isn't the problem

[ray-auch]

It could be that half the code in the kernel is GPL3 and half of it is GPL2. In that case, you would need to abide by the restrictions on both licenses in order to distribute it.

Wrong, it can't be that way. GPL3 _adds_ restrictions (eg. the DRM stuff) over and above GPL2. GPL2 _forbids_ adding restrictions. The two are fundamentally incompatible - all the code has to be under one or the other. [ note that that doesn't preclude some code being under _either_ (eg. "GPLv2 or later"), but it does mean that you can't mix code that is _only_ GPL2 with code that is _only_ GPL3 ].

Re:An issue of points of view

[ray-auch]

If you read what Linus' has said on the subject he knows _exactly_ why he chose to move the kernel to GPL (it didn't start out that way). It has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with "fairness" and "reciprocity" - which GPL also happens to do quite well.

Re:Scenarios

[Rich0]

Simple - the GPL is a license. You only need a license to do something that would otherwise be illegal - like distributing the copyrighted linux kernel.

Alan hasn't distributed any hardware that requires his signature to a kernel. So, he hasn't violated the GPL.

BadCorp has - they released a version of the kernel which can only be run with Alan's signature. They can only do so if they supply Alan's private key. Note that Alan is under no obligation to provide his key - only BadCorp is. So, unless Alan cooperates with them, they are up the creek.

Obviously this could be hashed out in about 40 different sets of particular circumstances, but I'm guessing the solution will be something along those lines. If Alan isn't doing anything, he doesn't need a license to not do it...

Re:Nope, it's a thinko.

[geekee]

"Nope. If Linus is saying that a non-DRM clause is valid for content, then to me, he basically just invalidated his position. Code is art and knowledge, and as such qualifies as content."

No, he's consistent since there is no way to distribute linux binaries without human readable source code under GPLv2. Therefore, he is practicing what he preaches.

Re:Good article by LWN, and DRM will stay

[Anonymous Coward]

What is user-controlled DRM?

Hardware that refuses to run code the user hasn't approved.

Can you point to a clear explanation (preferably with examples) of what user-controlled vs. non-user-controlled DRM are?

GPL2: you buy a computer that comes with free software, you get the source code but when you compile it you discover that the computer only runs signed binaries and the manufacturer won't give you their private key. GPL3: the manufacturer still won't give you the private key because you would break havoc with it, but they need to follow the license so they make hardware that you can set up so that only the code you signed with your own private key will work.

Re:Ummm...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Except I think it predates the FSF's "GNU/Linux" position...