Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software

Linus Warms (Slightly) to GPL3 234

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the but-only-a-very-little dept.
lisah writes "Though Linus Torvalds isn't exactly tripping over himself to endorse the GPLv3 draft, he continues to warm up to it little by little and says the newest version is 'a hell of a lot better than the disaster that were the earlier drafts.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Warms (Slightly) to GPL3

Comments Filter:
  • by jshriverWVU (810740) on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:33AM (#19466793)
    to whomever wishes to use it. Remember we're all free to choose our license, having another just adds another path a developer can use but not limiting what's already out there.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:38AM (#19466863)
      Remember we're all free to choose our license...

      No, we're all *unfree* to choose our license! Real freedom will be when everyone has to use only free licenses.

      Please review RMS's latest encyclical on the difference between Free free and free Free.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by PitaBred (632671)
        Malkovich? Malkovich malkovich!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Remember we're all free to choose our license, having another just adds another path a developer can use but not limiting what's already out there.

      It limits everyone when we have multiple incompatible licenses, because we cannot use code placed under one of these licenses in a project under another license.

      The GPLv3 will cause just such a conflict.

      Whether this is reason enough to avoid it is another subject. But it's still true.

      • by Scarblac (122480) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Monday June 11, 2007 @12:04PM (#19467237) Homepage

        The FSF has always used "version 2 or later" licenses. In that case, there is no incompatibility.

        It's only third party projects that changed that into version 2 only that will now be incompatible.

        • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Monday June 11, 2007 @12:21PM (#19467417) Homepage Journal

          The incompatability stems from the incompatability between v2 and v3. v3 is not "backwards compatible"; nor is it compatible with other licenses. That's a problem. Linus has always said that v3 is an over-reaction to a relatively small problem - tivo-ization. Now that we're seeing the MS-Novell and MS-Xandros deals backfiring on all the parties involved, even without the gpl v3, I'd tend to agree.

          There's nothing to stop anyone from producing hardware compatible with Tivo's code, minus the "keys".

          There's nothing to stop people from switching to another distro when a particular vendor leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

          Given that, and that Microsoft would be the loser in any patent war, what's the big rush? GPLv2 isn't broke, but the way some people are reacting, you'd think that Microsoft had managed to coopt all gpl v2 code.

          What I'd be more concerned about is that the code written under the "covenants" with Microsoft. And with the status of the people who work on that code. Both the code and the coders will be contaminated, unable to work on related GPL products, the same as if they had partaken of the flavor-aid of Microsoft Shared Source.

          Funny how this real threat - contaminated coders - is being overlooked. 5 years from now, Microsoft will be in a position to get injunctions against any distro that uses code touched by them, based on tried and tested copyright law, not patents. That's a real danger, and one that Microsoft will have no fear of retaliation from, unlike a patent war.

          Remember, Microsoft has always been very skilled at getting people to look at the wrong hand, just like a magician.

          • by QuantumG (50515)
            The purpose of the GPLv3 is to make the language of the license more legally binding. Everything else that has been added is just icing on the cake. It is possible that some of this language could be backported into the 2.x branch, not incorporating any of this icing, but I don't think there is anyone who wants to do that. We like icing.
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            "Funny how this real threat - contaminated coders - is being overlooked. 5 years from now, Microsoft will be in a position to get injunctions against any distro that uses code touched by them, based on tried and tested copyright law, not patents. That's a real danger"

            This fear has had me concerned about the Gnome Desktop project. IIRC Many of the gnome devs work at Novell (novell acquired Ximian a few years back.) So guys like Miguel De Icaza are blazing away on .NET and gtk/gnome and various other pr
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              I fear it would tank gnome.

              Also, it would mean the removal of all mono-based tools, and a lot of OpenSuse/Suse uses Mono ... which was what came to my mind when people started with the "patents fud" stuff.

              Fortunately, we have alternatives (except for the GIMP, which really relies heavily on gtk2).

              If you were Microsoft, wouldn't it be worth a billion to "contaminate" the top developers at most of your competition, and any projects they've worked on? The FUD alone would be worth billions; the success o

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          It's only third party projects that changed that into version 2 only that will now be incompatible.

          "Third party" doesn't mean "anything not done by GNU with copyrights held by the FSF".

          Regardless, there's more non-FSF code than there is FSF code on this planet, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nothing interesting, regardless.

    • by QuantumG (50515)
      You're so right. I mean, some people like having giant bleeding legal holes in the middle of their license. No need to update a 14 year old legal document so those holes can be plugged.

    • by hhr (909621)
      In a large project link Linux where many developers merge code from many sources, picking your license isn't a simple decision. For exmaple, GNU contrubutes the complier and Command Line Tools. Suppose future versions of that software are release in GPL3. Could the rest of Linux resonably stay on GPL V2?

      Yes, you could fork the code, but now you've doubled your maintenace and integration time, time which is probably better spent elsewhere.

      You could also release a verion of Linux that's both GPLV2 and GPLV3.
      • "For exmaple, GNU contrubutes the complier and Command Line Tools. Suppose future versions of that software are release in GPL3. Could the rest of Linux resonably stay on GPL V2?"

        You should try for a better example: both the compiler and command line tools are the less "viral" of all software since they doesn't bind to anything in order to be used.
    • by houghi (78078)
      I am a software user, not a licence user. I don;t give a flying fork about licences. I am not interested in licences. I did not even read the GPL, neither the BSD or Vista or whatever licence that comes with my software.

      I want to use software. I want to make software for others. As long as it isn't public domain, a licence is a restriction to what I can do with it, otherwise why have a licence and not just put it under public domain.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by evil_Tak (964978)

        You're exactly the person for whom the GPL, version 3 and all earlier versions, was written.

        As far as a software user is concerned, GPL and public domain are basically equivalent, except that GPL software is guaranteed to stay public domain forever.

    • Totally agree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thrill12 (711899) on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:05PM (#19471211) Journal
      ... although large corporations will not (especially large corporations in the embedded world). They will protest and feel like they are pushed in a direction that means a certain loss. I think that is good however, because it only *seems* that way. In the end, when GPL V3 has been in effect for a few years, has covered Linux, and has dealt some blows to unwilling device vendors that thought 'they could get away with it' - but also saw device vendors that will agree with conforming to the rules set forth by V3 - the (embedded) world will be a better place.
       
      It will mean that more developers are able to play the game of hacking a device, more innovation, more interest in beta-programs - and in the end the big corporations will benefit, because it means that they gain more employees that are proficient in their (former hidden) proprietary technologies. There will still be proprietary in a device, and it will still be hidden to the outside world, but it will no longer hinder you to use the device to its fullest.
  • by Aranykai (1053846) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (resnogls)> on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:36AM (#19466833)
    "I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push the GPLv3)." No one is forcing anyone to use this. If you dont like it, chose another licensing scheme. And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it.
    • by liquidpele (663430) on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:58AM (#19467147) Journal
      It's just another license that goes further than the GPL did.

      BSD License: Use our code, but keep our names in the source.
      GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
      GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

      It just depends on the programmer's preference. I like GPL v2 still personally. It gives companies incentives to help out, where I think v3 makes the GPL less attractive to companies which will hurt it in the long run imho. A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.
      • by Rakshasa Taisab (244699) on Monday June 11, 2007 @12:18PM (#19467383) Homepage
        Hmm.... Wait... Sun is a company right?

        So why does it look like they'll be going for GPLv3 instead of v2 for Solaris and Java stuff then, if that is less attractive to companies? Perhaps what you meant was; Some companies like v2 better than v3.
        • by vakuona (788200)
          Because Sun owns all the code (pretty much) there, so they are not really limited by the license they choose. Everyone else is though, and so Sun does not lose much or anything at all.
        • Because the GPL V3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only code, such as the Linux Kernel. Sun want's to get most of the advantages of open source, however they DON'T want any unique Solaris code ending up in the Linux kernel. If the Linux kernel was GPLv2-or-later, then Sun woudn't be touching any gpl license within a 100 yards of their Solaris kernel.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by squiggleslash (241428)

            Yes, because Sun would be so upset if someone used their free software in another free software operating system. Or if someone put another free operating system's code in their free operating system.

            I don't think so. That really doesn't make a lot of sense. Sun presumably wants the best operating system it can get, and if that's a frankenstein-like Linux/SunOS hybrid, then that's what they want.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, 2007 @12:21PM (#19467407)
        GPLv2 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses to side step the requirements.

        GPLv3 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses, contracting with someone else to provide a discriminatory patent license, or using DRM to prevent people from executing the rights you are required to grant them.

        So, the list of specifically excluded funny business has expanded somewhat. No one should claim this as a shock because the GPLv2 includes a delightful preamble which explains the purpose of the license, and the changes in v3 are perfectly in line with that purpose. Beyond that, GPLv3 has also had a lot of linguistic overhaul so it is a much clearer document overall.
      • by kebes (861706)

        v3 makes the GPL less attractive ... A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.

        But that was precisely the fear with GPLv2: that no company would touch it because that would give their competitors and advantage. But in the end, companies realized that the GPL levels the playing field, so although your competitor can use the code, you get t

        • I mean, sure, it depends what field you're in. For example, GPL-ing Java certainly helps Sun's competitors -- I guess in theory, some wicked-cool feature of Java can now be ported to Mono.

          However, take something like Drupal. Pretty much any company implementing Drupal (or another open-source CMS) on their website is going to have to write some custom modules, or at least a custom theme. If they release their modules back to the community, so what?

          For example: I used to work here [pocketpcmag.com]. They are starting to use Dr
        • "But that was precisely the fear with GPLv2: that no company would touch it because that would give their competitors and advantage. But in the end, companies realized that the GPL levels the playing field, so although your competitor can use the code, you get to have his code modifications, too. And you're getting a community helping improve your code. So lots of company are now using GPLv2 code."

          Many companies still don't license their code under the current GPL so it's not as if the "fear" that companies
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by roscivs (923777)

        GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
        GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

        "we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." -- GPLv2

      • by Kjella (173770) on Monday June 11, 2007 @12:50PM (#19467699) Homepage
        GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
        GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.


        It really goes more like:
        GPL2 License: Use our code, but don't restrict your code or derivative program in any way.
        GPL3 License: Use our code, but don't restrict your code or derivative program in any way and now we've covered your loopholes.

        There are a great many things you can say about RMS, but being inconsistant is not one of them. If you read about the freedoms he wrote about when the GPLv2 was made, you'll realize that DRM, patents and tivoization are all against the spirit of the license. The GPL was made so that you could use the work in private, but so that it would never return to the public in a form less free than it was when you took it. If you subscribe to the RMS ideology, the GPLv3 is only a logical continuation of that.

        Of course, many people don't. While intents may clarify how something should be read, what's not written in the license isn't in the license. So a lot of people have looked at the text of the GPLv2, and found those terms acceptable by itself. To them, maybe the GPLv3 comes as a surprise bur ir shouldn't.

        A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, (...)

        Tell me, if you were considering whether to license something as GPLv2 or GPLv3, which is preferable:
        a) A company that takes your code can't use DRM to make people pay for your code
        b) A copmany that takes your code can sell it to consumers on their Tivoized box because it needs their company's signature
        I know which one I'd prefer, the one that didn't give that other company a free profit at my expense. And the GPLv3 is better at it.
        • "I know which one I'd prefer, the one that didn't give that other company a free profit at my expense. And the GPLv3 is better at it."

          And if you don't mind companies releasing proprietary extensions of your code, or stopping people from redistribute it, please use BSD or MIT licenses. That way you'll be compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and Apache, Eclipse, ...).

          There is little reason to use GPLv2 once v3 is out.

      • by Znork (31774) on Monday June 11, 2007 @01:06PM (#19467875)
        I'd say it's more like:

        GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.

        GPL3 License: Use our code, but give back your code too. And quit trying to get cute, smartarse.

        "I think v3 makes the GPL less attractive to companies"

        Hardly. It makes trying to do end runs around the license less attractive. For those who intend to honor the letter and spirit of the GPL it makes no real difference.

        For honest companies recieving and using GPL code it serves to protect them against further submerged litigation mines. The only ones hurt are those intent on breaking the rules.

        "A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes"

        Yes they can. The time lead and expertise is enough to compete very well in an industry with rapid product turnover. They're getting _most of their code for free_, remember? The only resources they have to invest are their edge above the baseline.

        The competetive free market isnt about protecting ROI while you sit twiddling your thumbs. It's about allowing profit until cutthroat competition will catches up, thus enforcing a constant equilibrium of forced continous improvement or risking lost profits.

        The GPL enforces this cycle of rapid competitive improvements and subsequent baseline merges. This enforced free market, this protection from market control and monopoly inefficiency is what enables free software, just like a free market, to compete with, and even outcompete the protected markets with a fraction of the investment and resources.
      • by HalAtWork (926717)
        "A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed."

        That's ridiculous, sure they can. You can go on selling your product and making use of GPLed software, and so can they. What's the problem if you fix a bug in the invoice software so that you can bill them properly and they can bill you properly, doesn't it benefit the both of you?

        The point of
      • by Eric Damron (553630) on Monday June 11, 2007 @01:25PM (#19468109)
        "A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes..."

        Do you understand Open Source at all?? The WHOLE POINT IS TO LET OTHER'S USE YOUR CODE!!

        Man, I'm beginning to wonder how many astro-turfers are crawling around slash-dot.
        • Do you understand Open Source at all?? The WHOLE POINT IS TO LET OTHER'S USE YOUR CODE!!

          Nitpick: that's actually the point of Free Software. The point of Open Source is to let everyone see your software and tell you how to fix it without having to actually let them use it.

      • by Skapare (16644)

        GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

        GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and make sure I can still use it on the hardware you distributed it on even if I recompile it from source myself.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by colmore (56499)
        Why should my work support someone else's patents and DRM, both of which I find to be utter abberations on the face of computing. What's the point of having code be made open souce if it's going to be patented so that derivitive works can't be made -- that's the whole durn' point. If private interests want DRM and patents, then they can do their own work and keep it closed, but if they're taking code from the FSF, the GPL and millions of coders like me, then I'd prefer they keep their hands above the tabl
      • It gives companies incentives to help out, where I think v3 makes the GPL less attractive to companies which will hurt it in the long run imho.

        I have never understood this argument. If you look at the corporate-created open-source licenses like the CDDL, MPL, CPL, and ASL, in every case one of the major reasons that they are incompatible with the GPLv2 is that they contain CYA protections against patents that the GPL didn't. Many of them are still incompatible with GPLv3 because they go even farther with their patent protections than the FSF was willing to go with the GPLv3.

        The various companies that are contributing code under open source licens

      • GPL: If you distribute GPL software, you have to give the people to whom you distribute such GPL software exactly the same rights that YOU HAD WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE SOFTWARE.

        GPL3: What part of what we said did you not understand? Do we have to spell it out for you? Very well, I guess we will.
    • by metamatic (202216)

      "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)

      Well, sure, if you think there's nothing wrong with companies taking away the 4 freedoms from end users of GPL software, then there's no reason to use GPL v3.

      But if that's what you think, why use GPL v2 either? Why not just use BSD?

    • "And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it."

      I don't think the Novell/Microsoft deal is a non-issue. If taken in context it clearly shows one of the strategies Microsoft is taking in an effort to destroy its competition.

      Microsoft floated a balloon with the SCO litigation. I have no doubt that if investigated it would come out that Microsoft encouraged SCO and helped fund the lawsuit.

      Let's look at the strategy for a second.
      1. Offer a l
    • Just because Linus doesn't want to expend any effort whatsoever regarding legal issues doesn't justify his position.

      In part, I agree with his decision to ignore legal issues. And I also see how it's possible to say that tivoization hasn't harmed GPL project diversity.

      Linus may be okay with Tivo's case because he can undo their GPL evil and he's still a fundamental part of a whole ecosystem. IMHO that's a short-sighted though, because the GPL acts as kind of a legal conservancy, protecting ideas.
      • I wonder with all the crap that Linus has to put up with, if he had to do it over again, would he just go with the BSD license?
    • A quick query. Stallman at http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html [fsf.org] seems to imply that DVD players must be restriced by law (The DMCA). Is this so? If it is then, I can hardly see that Tivo are at fault for locking their product.

      Given this, I get the impression that Stallman's argument is that this is of no concern of his! Either GPLv3 code must be non-locked-down, or not used at all.

      Which is fair enough. Tivo will have to use software for which there is no restriction on them locking it down. Windows?

      Which be

  • by jshriverWVU (810740) on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:36AM (#19466851)
    "if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at least see the _reason_ for GPLv3."

    I wasn't even aware Sun was considering GPLv3 for OpenSolaris. So it'll be interesting to see how that pans out. Remember GPL isn't just for gnu/linux, but MANY projects on many platforms and operating systems.

    • Even if Linus completely loved GPL3, there are considerable barriers to changing Linux to GPL3.

      Remember folks that Linux is the result of contributions by thousands of people (one of whom happens to be Linus). Those contributions have been made under GPL2. The only person that can change the licensing is the contributor. The rights to assign licensing have not been signed over to Linus so he has no authority to change the licensing on all Linux code.

      Unless someone can come up with a clean way to address thi

    • by Hatta (162192)
      If OpenSolaris goes GPL, that will mean nice things for ZFS [linuxinsight.com] on linux.
  • So what happens when the libc, bash, make, and all the other GNU tools go GPL3 and the kernel is still GPL2?
    • Shouldn't be a problem. Keep in mind libc, bash, etc all make system calls to the kernel. The whole argument of linking basically come about lower down the chain you go. You might write programs that link to libc, but even libc is making system calls to the kernel. BTW big fan of int 0x80h :)
    • by Scarblac (122480)

      Not much, probably. Glibc is under the LGPL, and the others aren't linked to the kernel, just build tools. That should be fine.

      I don't know if there is code that is linked into kernel binaries that will be under the GPLv3, but I don't think there is.

    • by klingens (147173)
      GLIBC is not under GPL. Also, GPL3 software can use GPL2 software without a problem
      • by Dan Ost (415913)
        Is that true of software that is strictly GPL2 or just true of software that is "GPL2 or later versions of GPL"?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Scarblac (122480)

          The GPLv3 FAQ [fsf.org]:

          How is GPLv3 compatible with other GNU licenses?
          The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you can't combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.

          So strictly GPL2 stuff is incompatible.

      • Also, GPL3 software can use GPL2 software without a problem

        If the license says "GPL Version 2 or later, then you are correct. Some code does not have the "or later", including the Linux kernel as a whole (some pieces are also available under different licenses). The fact is that GPL3 and GPL2 are not compatible licenses. Much GPL2 code can be used with GPL3 only because it is licensed in a way that allows RMS to change the license. No GPL3 code can be inserted into GPL2 code. My opinions are very close

        • by Scarblac (122480)

          I think GPL3 is political, a knee jerk reaction to events in the market that RMS and some others are opposed to philosophically.

          Does the pope shit in the woods?

          RMS' personal philosophy of total software freedom is what drove him to creating the FSF, the GPL and GNU in the first place. It's not exactly a surprise that this reflects a little on the license text.

          If Torvalds doesn't like that, he should have picked a difference license.

          • by Znork (31774)
            "If Torvalds doesn't like that, he should have picked a difference license."

            IIRC, he did at first, but was talked into using the GPL. Of course, had he picked a different license it's dubious that Linux would have gained any significant traction in the end.

            For all of Linus's abilities as a technical project leader, his judgement and track record on license issues hasnt exactly been spotless.

            RMS, however, has been exceedingly clear on exactly what his purpose with the FSF has been, and has been so utterly co
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Ash Vince (602485)
              Of course, had he picked a different license it's dubious that Linux would have gained any significant traction in the end.

              I'd love to hear your rationale for that statement. I thought alot of companies used linux because of the flexibility it offered. The flexibilty to base a product on it and save alot of effort of developing from scratch. I would have thought that if you get too fussy with regard to the licence and how the code can be used alot of companies will just run away for the sake of avoiding the
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by cyborg_zx (893396)

                I'd love to hear your rationale for that statement. I thought alot of companies used linux because of the flexibility it offered. The flexibilty to base a product on it and save alot of effort of developing from scratch.

                Indeed but I think the point is that Linux would not have reached that point if it were not for the GPL because it would seem that those who wish to contribute to the idea of producing a free OS prefer the GPL for that end - otherwise one might expect something like OpenBSD to be more popu

              • by turbidostato (878842) on Monday June 11, 2007 @03:39PM (#19469931)
                "I would have thought that if you get too fussy with regard to the licence and how the code can be used alot of companies will just run away"

                What you seem to forget is that from day 0 whatever RMS did was "way too fussy"... on the start. It was "way too fussy" to start a "holy war" just because some printer drivers. It was "way too fussy" to start a foundation to cope with his points of views; it was "way too fussy" to look for a distribution license just to cope with his own envision. But, as bad as was the idea of the GPL (how in his sane mind would code for a license that will make your code just to be wide open to the competition? After all, if you want code for the sake of it, you have BSD-like licenses, haven't you?). But on the long run, not only there has been "some" persons and companies that have developed and release under the GPL, but that the GPL is seen as a more corparte-friendly license than others. Now new menaces come to disturb RMS's envision (you can say a lot of things about RMS but one you can't say is that it's easy to change his mind) and his reacting to cope with them and *again* as it was from day 0 a lot of people say that "this time" he really is gone "way too fussy".

                Well, maybe. We just need to wait and see (I for one believe that RMS is *again* on the right track).
    • Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call them UNIX/GNU tools. It's not as if much of this stuff was invented by RMS and GNU developers.
    • by Ant P. (974313)
      Probably the same thing that's currently happening between *BSD and gcc right now.
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:38AM (#19466877) Homepage Journal
    ...Linus has announced that although he's always hated marmalade in the past, he's slightly warming up to it after a recent bite of a friend's toast. He has also recently bought a green shirt despite earlier statements about green being his least favorite color, and it seems he currently prefers his eggs cooked slightly less runny than in the past.

    Rumors that he is experimenting with a new brand of tube socks are as yet unconfirmed.
  • Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by katterjohn (726348)
    I'll make my own license... with blackjack... and hookers.

    In fact, forget the license.
    • by rts008 (812749)
      Can I use your most interesting license?

      And add booze?

      This sounds like the perfect way to go.
  • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:43AM (#19466939)
    You'd think he'd be warming a lot quicker with all the flame mails coming in from the GPL fanboys.
  • by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:46AM (#19466983) Homepage Journal
    If anyone has comments about discussion draft 4, make them asap. Here's the page where you can see the draft and where you can add your comments:

    http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html [fsf.org]

    The plan is for the final GPLv3 to be published on June 29th, so comments should be submitted now so that there is still some time for them to be discussed and acted on.

    For an explanation on the changes and the motivations of the current draft, see:

    http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript [fsfeurope.org]
  • by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Monday June 11, 2007 @11:47AM (#19466991) Journal

    They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise. This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...

  • by Fujisawa Sensei (207127) on Monday June 11, 2007 @12:09PM (#19467285) Journal

    Linus doesn't have to relicense the entire kernel to impose the new GPL-3 restrictions on the kernel.

    Since it looks like GPL-2 code may be freely integrated into GPL-3 software, all Linus has to do is start adding GPL-3 code to the kernel. These small additions will have the effect of relicensing the kernel without affecting licensing of individual modules that Linus doesn't own the copyright to. Then anybody who wants to use Linux will have to stick with the GPL-3 restrictions, or remove the GPL-3 code before building or distributing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KarmaMB84 (743001)
      I'm afraid that would actually be a GPLv2 violation...
      • Which section?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yorugua (697900)
      Hmmm.. the man is saying:


      I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.

      that translates to me as "No thanks, GPLv3". Also, the man says:


      All I've heard are shrill voices about "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)

      which that translates to me as : "Why would I move to a license that forbids what I think it's ok to do?". if that's correct, with all that in mind, then I'd say we are ready for a GPLv2 kernel/GPLv3&v2 userspace. Is that a problem?

  • Question :S (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rupert0 (885882)
    If the kernel developers don't move to GPLv3, are they going to stay with GPLv2 or will they eventually release a new license? LGPL (Linux GPL)?
    • by Scarblac (122480)

      It might be a good thing, if Torvalds really isn't interested in the goals the FSF is pursuing. Perhaps start with the exact same text, but with another name (that would still be GPLv2 compatible so it would be a trivial change, but one that would make the situation clear).

      The problem now is that this is supposed to be a FSF discussion, about how best to achieve their goals by changing their license, using the process designed for changing it. Any affected parties can comment, and they do - I love the colo

  • So? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HotBBQ (714130) on Monday June 11, 2007 @01:31PM (#19468195)
    There's so much noise about GPLv3 and other copyright issues these days. I don't want to diminish the importance of good licensing practices, but I just frickin' want my X-Fi to work, games to run, and eye candy to drool over in Linux. I don't particulary care what license the work gets done under. I suspect most people don't either; they just want their machines to work.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The fact that most people do not care is absolutely irrelevant. If no one had ever cared, you'd be running Windows or some thing similar.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy (3352)

      I don't particulary care what license the work gets done under. I suspect most people don't either; they just want their machines to work.

      RMS became a Free Software advocate because he wasn't allowed to make a printer driver work. That right there's irony.

  • Rational Humans (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrCopilot (871878) on Monday June 11, 2007 @02:31PM (#19468817) Homepage Journal
    I so love seeing rational human beings re-evaluate their opinions. Comments like these are what keep Linus in my list of Heroes.

    RMS is on that list as well for the same reasons. The new version of GPL v3 is far and away better than the earlier drafts.

    I think changing the Kernel license to GPLv3 is technically almost an impossible task given the number of contributors. I do believe it is the way to go, I just don't really see it happening.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...