Torvalds Puts Support Behind GPL2 Linux 326
Christiangrays writes "Linux creator Linus Torvalds has used an interview being made public by the Linux Foundation to stress that version 2 of the GPL still makes the most sense for the Linux kernel over the newer GPL version 3. GPL 3, which was released last year by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), reflects the FSF's goals while GPL 2 closely matches what Torvalds thinks a licence should do, Torvalds said. "I want to pick the licence that makes the most sense for what I want to do. And at this point in time, Version 2 matches what I think we want to do much, much better than Version 3," said Torvalds, who is now a fellow at the foundation. He was interviewed in late-October by Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin."
How free does Linux want to be? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How free does Linux want to be? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be less acceptable if Linus immediatelly accepted GPLv3 , without looking at it . The fact that he stays with GPLv2 means he looked into it , and decides to play on the safe side and stay with a license that worked well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. I find your lack of faith disturbing. Do not underestimate the power of Linux:
"Linux can do endless loops in six seconds." -- Linus Torvalds.
2 vs 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] (the last section)
What is the value of letting a company use and modify the Linux kernel if they can legitimitely lock out any usage of a modified kernel on that hardwar
Re:2 vs 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Any company building a product like this has three choices:
- Use a proprietary kernel like QNX or Wince.
- Use a BSD licensed kernel.
- Use Linux.
Linus believes that changing to GPv3 would push companies to choose one of the first two options instead of Linux. RMS believes that switching to v3 would cause companies to continue using Linux but rethink their policy about locking users out of the systems they bought.[1] Please replace stable with any other adjective you feel applies to the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:2 vs 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of things in the GPLv3 that are broken with respect to how people think it works. And this includes a lot of the nonsense spouted by the FSF themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, besides the point that the GPLv3 doesn't stop TIVO from doing that...
I salute you! Finally somebody who gets it. I so wish I had mod points right now. Whenever this topic comes up, I am tempted to post the N different ways for circumventing GPLv3 that I can think of, but ultimately I don't want to encourage anybody.
Escalating the rules and restrictions for distributors in the GPL is somewhat similar to ever increasing new DRM methods: the more difficult you make it, the more likely it is that you'll find somebody who sees it as his mission to produce a workaround. The es
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They can still sue the modified kernel on their own hardware.
It depends if its an advantage... (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question, is how would a move to GPLv3 benefit Linux? If the answer is not at all, then by keeping it a GPLv2 helps make everyone's life simpler. Any change in license would in certain cases mean that Linux would have to revetted by legal departments in a number of companies and for TiVO-like products a real pain in the neck.
In many ways GPLv3 is a reaction to DRM, but getting all religious about things is not going to be the solution either, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question, is how would a move to GPLv3 benefit Linux?
No, the real question is, "how would a move to GPLv3 benefit Linux users?"
The GPL, regardless of version, has always been about the end user, not the developer or any of the intermediaries.
In many ways GPLv3 is a reaction to DRM, but getting all religious about things is not going to be the solution either, IMHO
The GPL has always been 'religious' about the end user's freedoms. You could just as easily say that DRM is a reaction to people's natural expectations of freedom.
The GPL's philosophy can be summarized in one sentence: Guarantee that the end user has full ability to tinker with the product. The GPLv3 simply plugs a f
The real question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I am working on a dual-licensed version of Busybox. It doesn't include the work of other folks, and does include a new UDEV implementation. People who don't support freedom can pay for the privilege, and I'll use that money to make more free code.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real question... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can buy an analog TV converter box because the government is paying for me to have two of them. I can not buy a TV Guide on Screen converter box because none is available and the format is proprietary and DRM-locked.
Bruce
Re:The real question... (Score:4, Insightful)
> That's not freedom, that's tyranny under the freedom banner.
This is a *complete* mischaracterization of the situation. You are using the absolute wrong terms here when you say 'freedom' and 'tyranny'. First off, freedom is such a loaded word that it's really hard to extract anything meaningful out of its use in situations like this. But 'tyranny under the freedom banner' is so clearly just *wrong*. The author of the GPLv3 is giving access to the copyrighted work under very specific terms. These terms don't take way anyone's freedom, and they don't establish any tyranny. They just give fewer freedoms than I suppose you would like them to give. I'd hardly call that 'tyranny'. To use an analogy, if I let any of the neighborhood kids play in my yard but I require that they not play baseball because I am worried that they'll break a window, am I being a tyrant? Not letting them come into my yard to fetch a ball that they accidentally hit there, would probably be tyranny. Not letting them play in my yard at all, maybe tyranny depending on your viewpoint, but I would argue not tyranny because it's my yard and really no one has a right to it except me. But letting them play in my yard and establishing a few rules that I require them to follow? How is that tyranny? And similarly, how is *giving away* the fruits of my labor, but with certain stipulations that don't affect how they use the software at all, just how they redistribute it - how can you possibly call that tyranny?
> I'm sure the intentions of the GPLv3 supporters (yourself included) are noble, but forcing your ideals
> onto other people is no better than what you proclaim to be fighting against.
I thought only people who hadn't put any thought into these issues at all used this argument. I guess not. Can you please explain how anyone is 'forcing [their] ideals onto other people' by releasing software for those other people to choose to either use or not use, depending on a) whether the software is useful to them and b) whether or not they agree to the licensing terms? Do you think that someone publishing a book is 'forcing their ideals' onto other people because those other people, if they were to choose to buy the book, would not be able to photocopy it for their friends? Forget about my pre-emptive arguments for a moment, and please just explain in what way someone who releases their code under GPLv3 is forcing anyone to do anything in any sane sense of the word 'force'?
> This whole GPL thing has just been a big headache to me and I regret ever choosing it.
Clearly you didn't read, or understand, the GPL before you chose it for your work, or maybe you just didn't think far enough ahead to realize that the problems that you had are inevitable if you use the GPL. I personally release my code under GPL *specifically* because I don't care about satisfying people who want to link my code into their application without obeying the GPL. I am not going to re-release it under the Lesser GNU Public License, because I chose the GPL *specifically* because of the freedoms that it guarantees users, and switching to the LGPL just backpedals on that in a way that makes one wonder what the point of using GPL in the first place ever was. Now I'm not saying that *you* have to use the GPL, or that the LGPL isn't the right choice for you, or that BSD, MIT, etc, licenses aren't better for you. It's your code, you should be the only person in the world who says what the best license is for your software. But I don't understand why you would talk about the GPL like *it* was the cause of some problems when in fact it was just your choosing of the *wrong* license for your intentions was the real cause.
Also the BSD without the "advert" clause is almost exactly the same thing as public domain. Why you would care th
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
On the contrary, the kernel is exactly where the difference between GPLv2 and v3 matters most. Let's say the device maker wants to implement DRM. This requires kernel support, because if it were attempted solely in userspace somebody could modify the kernel to intercept the stream. If the kernel is GPLv3, then there's no problem doing so. But if the kernel is GPLv2 (as in the TiVo), then the device can prevent the modified kernel from running and thus enforce the DRM.
In other words, the point is not moot a
Re:2 vs 3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read my signature.
GPLv3 cannot dictate terms to hardware. All it can dictate is which hardware that software may be run on.
In fact, it cannot even dictate that -- unless you intend to redistribute the software.
So, in a sense, it does limit the poor little TiVos of the world -- they are no longer free to simply take GPL'd code and give nothing back. Obviously, we can't stop them from makin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what's wrong with that? I like TiVo, I like their device, and I like that they used open source and were able to leverage the work of others (as all good engineering does). Hurray, Linux gets more exposure. Hurray, the goal of open source to promote the reuse of software instead of reinventing the wheel has been advanced.
So what is wrong with the TiVo pictur
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously some people disagree. Some disagree a little and will use GPLv2, some disagree a lot and will use GPLv3, some will complete agree and those will use BSD.
But here's the kicker: All of them OWN the code they wrote
Re: (Score:2)
I too see no reason to forbid it. I also don't see the problem with the Tivo but that is another subject all together. Freedom in software or anything for that matter isn't just the freedom that you want to allow people to have. Even if they use that freedom to restrict yours. There is another political term for the illusion of freedom that is basically "you can do what I say" and I will leave it to the reader to figu
Re: (Score:2)
I chose my words very carefully in that post, but apparently not carefully enough. I didn't say he was advocating DRM; I said he approves of it (which is the same as seeing no reason to forbid it).
Software, hardware, whatever! When you bring DRM into the picture then there's not really a difference, because if you don't have access to the hardware, you can't use the modified software!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it isn't really that he approves of it either. And yes, I misread what you wrote. From what I remember, he is just indifferent to the subject. He doesn't approve or disapprove of it. He just don't think it is up to him to stop others from using the software how they want in this manor which I think is the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to tell you a little story. I'm sure you've already heard it, being a Slashdot reader, but I'll continue anyway:
A couple of decades ago, there was a programmer, working at a college in New England, who had just gotten a new printer. He had a problem, though: the printer didn't do quite what he wanted. But that wasn't a big deal; like any good programmer, he figured he'd simply modify the printer's driver to fix it. In order to do this he'd need the so
Re: (Score:2)
GPL3 supports DRM too, just elsewhere (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure, but it wouldn't be effective DRM, because (since hardware access is controlled by the kernel) you could always find somewhere to intercept the deencrypted stream. Unless you know something about it I don't (which is certainly likely; you're Bruce Perens!)...?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft does DRM the way I'm talking about. They have a microkernel, called the "NIB", under their macrokernel. It is small, and implements the DRM as a service to the macrokernel above it. It can lock layers above it, which is necessary if the DRM device drivers live in those layers. However, if the DRM device drivers lived in the microkernel, you would be able to modify the kernel any way you wanted and it would not break the DRM.
Another way to handle this is to do the DR
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2 vs 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is a developer of something with open source code any more privileged than the end user? That's the whole point of the source code being available.
Furthermore, why is the manufacturer of a particular piece of hardware more privileged than the end user? The end user has every right not to buy that brand of hardware. The only real disadvantage the end user has isn't that the hardware in non-free. It's isn't even that they can't run their update kernel on the proprietary, sealed hardware without modifying the hardware. It's that without being able to decrypt the OS and then uncompile it, or to be able to run it in a sandbox, that they can't be sure the compiled kernel is really the same as what the manufacturer supplies as source. If Linus pushed the matter of making them prove it's the same, he could probably witness the signing of it and vouch for them. Otherwise, the very act of distributing a signed binary is counter to the requirement to provide the real source. However, if you have that little trust in the vendor, why would you buy their hardware, as it could be doing any nefarious thing too?
When someone calls themselves the "Free Software Foundation", they should be limiting the free use of the software as little as possible to further its greater freedom. The GPLv2, for all its perceived flaws, does that pretty well. To say something is free software, but that it can only be used in this or that way by people who agree with the whole political platform of the foundation is frankly blatant hypocrisy. What good is it to the end user to have the source code if they're not allowed to run the software? How is that keeping the privileged developers and members of the FSF from limiting the freedoms of end users?
Why is it a problem that Linus doesn't agree with the FSF altogether? Is complete agreement with the FSF prerequisite to abhor slimy, lying, monopolistic, closed-source Unix vendors? Is it important to carry an FSF card to think that cooperating with other developers around the world can produce something better than what's being pushed by the innovative marketing department at Microsoft? Linus chose the GPLv2 because what RMS codified in it made a lot of sense to him and to many other people.
It might help you to remember that RMS and the FSF are the ones who have changed position. The people who are sticking to the GPLv2 are doing exactly what the FSF asked of them up until a few months ago. Now, the FSF wants to ask them to change. Why is it that Linus or anyone else is being called anti-FSF when it's the FSF that has changed direction?
The FSF used to always say that if you liked the GPLv2 even enough to consider it, that it was better to use it and stand united as a Free Software community than to splinter off new and slightly incompatible licenses. That's true, and Linus saw the wisdom in that. Now, the GPLv3 is a license other than the GPLv2 and it's causing a bunch of strife and incompatibility in the community. Many people in and adorers of the FSF think that because they wrote both licenses that everyone should just switch. However, they encouraged the use of GPLv2 by a much wider audience than their core group, and now they're trying to say there's some dogma attached to the licenses. The licenses are legal documents for men, though, and not handed down from on high and dictated to software developers by angels.
The FSF should be glad so many people are using the GPLv2 rather than BSD, MPL, or any of a hundred thousand closed-source EULAs. By bickering with people who support the major beliefs of the FSF but not the dogma and specifics, the FSF is alienating all the OSI crowd who never bought into a centralized repository of "free" software at MIT in the first place. These are the people they should be glad are on the same side, even if they're not in the same tent.
Re: (Score:2)
But people can't -- not on a TiVo, at least, and not "people." The developers of the TiVo are getting to use it the way they wish, yes, but the users of the TiVo aren't! (Given the assumption that they want to do something that the TiVo doesn't already do, anyway.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but as has been pointed out to you, you've wandered outside of strictly software. It obviously doesn't matter to you, but consider that the argument is (roughly) equivalent to complaining that some GPLed i386 assembly code wont run on a PPC. You can still do whatever you want with the code, but the software license shouldn't have anything to do with the hardware (according to those who don't agree with this part of GPLv3).
GPLv3 advocates believe that the software license should also be able to rea
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the purpose of the GPL 3 is to preserve freedoms that users previously had, on account that some corporations are trying to infringe upon them.
Both of the above sentences mean the same thing; they are merely two sides of the same coin. The FSF (creator of the GPL) has always been on the side of the user (yes, at the expense of the developer -- preserving perfect freedom for both i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the idea doesn't even make sense! If you care about it being Free Software, then you also care about it not having DRM; if you don't mind it having DRM, then you shouldn't mind it being closed-source! Either you care about having control over the damn thing, or you don't! Any other opinion is logically inconsistent.
Re: (Score:2)
lookin for a karma whore. . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Discriminatory patents are restricted as follows: A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make paymen
Re:lookin for a karma whore. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Stallman, in the meantime, sees Tivo using their software but not allowing people to modify it and run it on their device, gets his panties in a bunch and decides that they need to modify the license to keep device manufacturers from doing that.
Linus, on the other hand, takes his evil corporate leanings and decides that hardware is different from software and that hardware manufacturers are, therefore, different from software developers and proclaims that hardware manufacturers should be able to do whatever they want.
Slashdot, in the meanwhile, get's a huge boner off of the conflict, especially Zonk, who's tickled pink that he doesn't even have to give misleading headlines and summaries to inflame people.
Re:lookin for a karma whore. . . (Score:5, Informative)
I don't really see how. I mean, if you're worried about giving an algorithm up, maybe you shouldn't be releasing the source in the first place?
Don't take that as a "we don't want your code" argument. It's more of an appeal to your own sanity. If that algorithm really is so critical to your success that you need to patent it, it's probably not something you want other people to know how to implement.
If the project accepted that code, then yeah, pretty much. That's why people are so wary of Mono.
However, there are other rather large changes with the GPLv3 -- mostly, closing loopholes which revolve around the definition of "distribution" and the usefulness of "source code". Distribution is the easier one to explain -- if you're running a website on open source (Apache, etc), you are technically not "distributing" it, even if you get a million hits per day. Because you're not distributing it, you don't need to accept the GPL, and you don't need to give source code to visitors of your site.
As for "source code", the GPL was originally written not because Stallman wants to see the source, but because he wants to be able to modify any program he's running -- the original story is that Stallman made a modification to a printer driver (because they provided source, as a matter of consideration), but later, when the lab got a new printer, it did not come with source, so he could not make that modification.
Linus claims to use the GPL for a different reason: He only wants to be able to see the source -- see what people are doing with his code -- and then re-incorporate any useful changes they made back into the project.
GPLv3 is a problem because it closes some loopholes by which you could get the source code, but not be able to modify that same program and run it on the same hardware. This is the "Tivoization" argument -- Tivo gave you source code, but no actual Tivo player would let you compile and run a modified version. Specifically, the hardware would use checksums to verify that the software had not been modified.
Linus has no problem with Tivo -- in fact, he likes it, because his software gets used for more things, and he still gets source code to play with on non-Tivo devices. Stallman hates Tivo, because he can't buy a Tivo and start tinkering with it, so the source code, while useful, no longer serves that original purpose of the GPL.
Old news AND irrelevant... (Score:5, Insightful)
b: It is irrelevant. Even if Linus loved the GPLv3, there is so much code contributed to the Linux kernel without a transfer of copyright and under GPLv2 only terms that it couldn't be changed anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine he'd accept dual-licensed submissions but it's quite possible that he wouldn't bother to document the gplv3 part.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the GPLv2 allows anyone to pick any later version of the GPL if they so choose?
Ergo, who cares what he says about GPLv2 or GPLv3, just download it, state to yourself (loudly, proudly, standing at your cube, with a cape blowing in the wind if possible) "I declare this copy of the
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot take something licenses under a type or license that get's all of it's power from copyright law and attempt to usurp that copyright law in an effort to change the license to another version of a license that acts in the same way. Well you can but you wouldn't expect to be able to defe
Re: (Score:2)
It is now a serious, production operating system that has received significant support and input from several of the largest tech companies in the world.
Are you seriously suggesting that Linus could simply write a short message saying, "I'm gonna change the license to GPLv3, kthxbye", without kicking off a shitstorm of controversy, and possibly exposing himself to litigation? Espe
Patents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And even the GPL v2 says quite clearly that you can't distribute GPL2 code without passing on the full GPL rights and cites a patent license as an example of something that might prevent this.
As I understand it, the patent stuff in the GPL 3 was an attempt to prevent attempts to fudge around this with shenanigans such as:
I promise almost certainly maybe not to sue your immediate customers over any intellectual property of mine which may or may not turn up in this code but this doesn't violate GPL2 becau
Pragmatism/idealism (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people characterise Torvalds as being pragmatic as opposed to Stallman's idealism, but Stallman is pragmatic too, he just looks further ahead than Torvalds. This short-sightedness doesn't pay off. Stallman warned about the BitKeeper problem, but Torvalds didn't do anything about it until the situation blew up in his face. The FSF started requiring a paper trail for GNU contributions, Torvalds didn't follow their lead until SCO started suing.
I'm not a fan of GPLv3, but I can't understand why people consistently deride Stallman and worship Torvalds. Stallman is consistently proven right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they deride Stallman to side with Linus at all. I think it is more of a situation where they don't see Stallman as being sane and already reside were Linus.
I remember some time long ago where I took a stand to find that others supported the same as me too. Now the question might be did we come to this conclusion all by ourselves? Did people take m
Re: (Score:2)
RMS and his brilliance (Score:5, Insightful)
However, for all RMS's brilliance, his lack of social grace, to put it mildly, undermines him as the CEO of the Free Software/Open Source Enterprise. Indeed, the fact that his "movement" was hijacked and renamed Open Source, and his operating system was hijacked and renamed from GNU to Linux, is a testament to that.
Big companies don't hire CEO's that can forecast the future. CEO's hire rooms of people that do that. Companies hire CEOs that can communicate the vision of the company to the outside world AND the people inside the company. The forecasting ability of Stallman is tremendous, but the lack of communication skills is devastating for him as leader of the movement. It's tragic, because he wants to hold the reigns because this is 100% all his idea, but he's a lousy spokesman for his own ideas, and lost control by not finding a better one.
The Biggest Elephant in the Room: Copyright ownership and standing
The most important thing to the FSF is copyright assignment to maintain a single owner to have standing to enforce. If this is so important to free software, why was that not incorporated into the license. You could have a provision that did roughly the following:
1. You are free to modify for your own use, no need to even agree to license
2. You are free to distribute modifications, if you do, you agree that your modifications are a derivative work, and all copyright is maintained by the maintainer of the software (define this in the license, first person to distribute becomes maintainer, unless a new maintainer is named by them)
3. You are free to fork, but you have to rename the software, you then become maintainer of the fork, owning all derivative changes from here on out of your version
That might not have been an obvious problem in the 80s, but given the Emacs vs. Xemacs ownership of code issue (Xemacs could use Emacs, but not vice versa because FSF requires ownership of all copyrights), arguments about relicensing, etc., this was obvious by the time v3 was created. Some solution should have been found to maintain single ownership of projects for the purpose of standing that didn't require a lot of paperwork.
Examples of this:
1. GNU vs. Linux... Linux sounds like Unix (people knew Unix, liked Unix, but couldn't afford Unix), and the fact that it's a play on a name is irrelevant. Digital Unix, Xenix, HP-UX, etc., all prepped people for a *ux/*ix name for a Unix. GNU? Hard to pronounce, a silly inside joke, etc., lousy brand. The system didn't become Linux instead of GNU by fluke, Linux's superior name and brand displaced GNU.
2. Free Software / Open Source: Open Source is descriptive... there is more to it than the source being viewable, but that's the main action item, the rest is details. Free Software? confusingly vague, similar to Freeware (an already existing term with a lousy brand), and required a "manifesto" to understand. In fact, the existence of a "manifesto" was problematic, because we only here the word "manifesto" used in conjunction with "crazy people" and "revolutionaries," with a tremendous overlap between them. Free Software, captured the ideal if you understood the concept... clever for someone with a 180 IQ to create, interesting for people in the 130-150 range to understand and ponder, and meaninglessly abstract for someone in the normal range... bad branding #2, and RMS lost his movement.
3. Emacs vs. Xemacs: the exchange ab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You see, you, or anyone for that matter, are only right when you are right. When you have outstanding predictions, it doesn't mean that you are right or wrong, it means that w haven't found out yet.
Human nature it to interpret things with your own experiences. Not from the ramblings of someone that has a good track record. the people who subscribe to "the church of Stallman", which is only a play on your
Re: (Score:2)
History is going to judge GPLv3 harshly for (a) hewing very closely
Re: (Score:2)
Using GNU/HURD much lately?
As a matter of fact , all most everyone using Linux uses part of it. The HURD kernel was the last part to be completed. Without the GNU/HURD project the rest of the software that the Linux kernel interacts with (everything but the Linux kernel) would not have existed at the time it was needed.
Stallman saw the need for a free operating system. Its just the project chose a difficult to perfect design for its kernel.
But he has shown an uncanny ability to see what is needed way before others. Granted for ot
No choice in the matter (Score:3, Informative)
Linux license could be changed easily (Score:5, Informative)
A license change (alteration of the terms of the GFDL) was recently done for Wikipedia which is a much bigger problem than the kernel due to the fact that it has tens of thousands of times as many copyright holders. FSF cooperated. It proceeded very quietly.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
That's a super idea! Hey, Sony BMG, I'm going to rip off all your Britney Spears back catalogue unless you tell me not to. Bruce said it would be OK. Yeah, Bruce Perens. What do you have to say to that, Sony?
Re: (Score:2)
I know,
Re:Linux license could be changed easily (Score:5, Informative)
Could a BSD developer do this to GPL software? No for two reasons. One, because the GPL software was not a contribution to his project. And two, because that changes the entire intent of the license, where a modification of GPL2 to GPL3 would not.
I am not an attorney, I just work with them a lot because I do corporate Open Source strategy for many big companies. I've discussed this particular question with multiple attorneys.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
I sorry I wrongly called you an attorney. Somehow I thought you were, probably because of your associations with them.
I also understand that it had been done before. From my understanding though, the system calls thing isn't a change in the license rather a clarification on the interpretation of the GPL and the GPL only change
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Linux license could be changed easily (Score:5, Informative)
Legally, a reasonable time period like 90 days should work, a month at the shortest. Linus has done this before (when he added a prelude to the GPL, and when he removed the GPL upgrade provision) and I think didn't even wait a month for opposition. But I think it would be best to honor removal requests forever, because whether or not you have to, fixing the code is easier than arguing about it in court. Obviously, you can't remove distributed instances, you can only remove it from the main source tree.
Code ages, and loses value as it does, especially in an active work like the kernel. You don't want code of folks who don't want to work with you any longer. And remember how long it took Linus to replace Bitkeeper? One month.
Now, everybody is responding with can I give legal notice to the RIAA? Of course not. RIAA did not contribute their work to your collaborative project. It is the fact that the overall work has multiple copyright holders that makes changing the license without the active participation of 100% of them possible.
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Makes sense (Score:2)
I'd go for v2 or any later with the caveat that if you want to merge into official kernel it must be v2.
Anyway I'm likely missing all the problems with patents which could suggest going GPL3.
Not good enough anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so GPL 2 is "locking code up?"
It's not that the GPLv2 is a bad license--it is a great license. The question is whether the GPLv3 is better (and if so, then why not use it?).
Where were all these people who had strong anti-GPL 2 sentiments before 3 was released?
They were discussing the shortcomings of v2 prior to v3 being created (in fact, it was because of those discussions that v3 was born). One can be pro-GPLv2 but still think of ways to improve it, by the way. The complaints used examples like TiVo (extending code, but preventing end-users from exercising freedom to tinker), web-services (making derivative code, but
Re: (Score:2)
The Tivo example is not about the availability of source code, because that is a must, but about the ability to be able to change the source code. Tivo violated the spirit of GPLv2 when they created their device in such a way that it can only run their signed versions (and their users can't have the key). The problem is that this aspect of the license is not really enforceable in a court, so thus GPLv3 was created. It just spells out spe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You cant do it on probably the only piece of hardware it runs on. Whats the point of a piece of software, if you cant run it on the hardware it is intended to run on? What if not only TiVo did this, but, well, _every single_ PC manufacturer out there? You would have free software everywhere, but couldnt run it anywhere. Well, you could run it, but only in the way the manufacturer intended to. What kind of "freedom" would that be? Isn
As Tonto would say... (Score:2)
"I want to pick the licence that makes the most sense for what I want to do. And at this point in time, Version 2 matches what I think we want to do much, much better than Version 3,"
"I", or "we", Linus?
In the words of the great Tonto, "What do you mean WE, white man?"
Linux creator Linus Torvalds has used an interview being made public by the Linux Foundation
Superbanana has used a posting being made by Slashdot to complain about the lack of editorial skills on the Slashdot staff...yeesh.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct, and deliberately... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A little out of touch, are we? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been out for less than 6 months. These things can take a long time. I wonder how successful GPLv2 was 6 months after release?
Re: (Score:2)
gplv3 is going to look like a market failure but a ideological win.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's talking about the hordes of commenters in places like Slashdot, who have jumped on the bandwagon and have come to the conclusion that GPL2 is not "open" enough. It strikes me as a bit silly when all these kids, who have never contributed a single line of code, criticize the creators of software on their op
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because MS Word is facing significant competition from Emacs as the text entry program of choice.
Do you understand free software? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
So now, suddenly, since there is a new version of the GPL, anyone who stays on the old version hates software freedom?
Wow. That's kind of an extreme way to look at it. Especially since RMS himself said that there's nothing wrong with continuing to use GPL V2, if that's what a project wants to do.
Re:Torvalds sells out Free Software and RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
The nice thing about lots of licenses is that you, as the developer or development team, can pick the one that you feel best serves your project's interests. It seems to me the license wars are the very dichotomy of the idea of an open license, because they're all about trying to force developers down a specific path.
Re: (Score:2)
Free software is a thing. It is a tool. It is a means to an end. Isn't it fine if you just like the idea of it? Or that you find enough value in it to contribute to it? Must it be love?
Same thing with RMS. I don't know the man but why is love of him required? Isn't like or respect good enough?
Yep RMS can not prevent anyone from using GPL V2 of they want. If RMS forbid the packaging of any GNU Code with Linux
Do you understand how free software works? (Score:5, Informative)
More to the point, this is much ado about nothing. Even if Mr. Torvalds "saw the light" and decided he wanted to move to GPL v3, this would be impossible in practical terms since Linux has no copyright escrow agent similar to the FSF for GNU. In other words, to move code licensed to Linux under GPL v2 (only) to GPL v3 requires re-licensing by the original author -- which you may never be able to find. So, you may safely assume that Linux will be GPL v2 until it is re-written from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a case of "sour grapes [wikipedia.org]". Due to a bad decision, he is locked into a single license now. It will only get worse. Eventually there will be a GPL4.
Re: (Score:2)
L. Ron Torvalds vs. the Stallmanistas (Score:3, Funny)
L. Ron Torvalds has just declared all out war on Richard Stallman and his radical attempts to conquer all software via the GPLv3.
These two guys are, like, the Gods of FOSS. Who will win this epic, climactic struggle? The FOSS world is obviously not big enough for the two of them... so who will win? Will this Clash of the Titans bring down all the hopes and dreams of the FOSS world? Will pasty white nerds be furiously waging war from their keyboards? Which side will be the first to