Torvalds Critiques of GPLv3 and FSF Refuted 548
j00bar writes "After Linus Torvalds' impassioned critiques of the second draft of GPLv3 and the community process the FSF has organized, Newsforge's Bruce Byfield discovered in conversations with the members of the GPLv3 committees that the committee members disagree; they believe not only has the FSF been responsive to the committees' feedback but also that the second draft includes some modifications in response to Torvalds' earlier criticisms." NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
I can see both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that Linus just wants to make his software while the FSF wants to change the world.
LK
Re:I can see both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, changes in the GPL (mainly those dealing with DRM) are absolutely necessary if you don't want code to be "stolen and closed." It's not some theoretical, idealistic thing. It's an extremely practical consideration.
If you write a program and release it under the GPL, and if it's permissible to make derivative versions that will no longer run when modified (due to DRM in hardware), then I can take and build upon your code and never give the improvements back. You may be able to see the source, but you can't use my changes because your future alterations will no longer execute on the hardware you own. I can also sell hardware including your code, and even though the GPL intends that my customers should thus have the right to modify the code -- they can't.
Allowing commingling of DRM and GPLed code is a huge loophole. It essentially allows someone to make a proprietary branch of your code. From then on, you can still look, but you can't touch.
As for patents, that's another very similar situation. By claiming patents on my modifications to your GPLed code, I can make my own proprietary branch of your code. You can no longer build upon my changes, because to do so would be a patent infringement... but I can freely take yours.
Re:I can see both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
The way Linus sees it is from the "developer" viewpoint. The code is still free from this viewpoint, since all modifications are published. You can modify it and run it on a DRM-free machine. The FSF rather thinks of the "end users" viewpoint, where modifying the code and running the modified code on the same machine is paramount.
For myself, I understand Linus view, but I tend to go along with the FSF view. Being unable to modify free software on a hardware device and run it on the same device violates the spirit of free software. The vendor could build upon the mountain of free code, saving a lot of money in the process (i.e. not reinventing the wheel), but does not grant any of these freedoms to their customers.
So to sum it up, I'd say they can write their own OS, or license a commercial one, if they don't want to give their customers the same freedoms they have.
Re:I can see both sides (Score:2, Interesting)
But the vendor must still publish the source of any changes he makes to the code. So the vendor is giving back. If you don't like that a vendor's device is locking you out, don't buy it. Is that so ha
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I can see both sides (Score:3)
Re:I can see both sides (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not. The device driver code for an obscure chip on, say, a wireless router is completely useless if I can't run the code on said hardware. Think about the Linksys WRT54G. It was just running a linux kernel modified to run on the router with a set of minimal networking utilities. When the source was released, people were able to add all sorts of stuff: better firewalls, servers, ssh utilities, more efficient and capable routing.... They wouldn't have been able to do any of this stuff if Linksys had tossed in a TPM chip and made it so only their signed modified linux would run. The changes they made were also useless without the hardware (yay, so now we know how to run linux on a Linksys router, to bad we can't actually do it).
So, yes, a consumer could just go buy a different wireless router, but that's not the point. The point is that Linksys would have been using GPL'd software to reduce their development costs without giving a useful share back to the community. Developers who don't mind that sort of thing use the BSD license. Developers who do use the GPL. For the GPL to continue to be relevant, it has to be modified to close loopholes that didn't exist 10 years ago.
Re:I can see both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the short-sightedness of Linus' argument (the same short-sightedness that let him get trapped by the Bitkeeper fiasco). There are DRM-free machines now, but that doesn't mean there will be in the future. If the media companies have their way, every desktop computer will have a TPM chip in it, and if you want to view things like HD-content, it has to be enabled and running. So a company can take a project, like say mplayer, make a version that plays their video format, decrypting the stream via the TPM hardware, and then sign the binary and then sell it. Congratulations, a company has just saved themselves a couple of years of development time to make a video player to help sell their video files, and you can't modify it at all. If you modify it, it reverts to just plain old mplayer without the ability to use the code that was added. That defeats the purpose of the GPL. Linus really needs to wake up here. Yes, proprietary software has a right to exist, but pretending a company won't take advantage of free software to reduce their development costs (without giving anything back, if they can) is stupid. The GPL allows commercial use of free software as long as you give a fair share back to the community. It is not some fiendish scheme to force all software to be free as some people would say. The GPL as it is has worked fine for the last decade, but now it needs to change or it will no longer serve its purpose.
Re:I can see both sides (Score:3)
I've looked into this. and yes I think that maybe one day open hardware [wikipedia.org] is going to exist. but not in any kind of near to mid term. the problem is money. A CPU fab costs intel in the billions to ma
Re:I can see both sides (Score:2, Interesting)
There are two things to think of that are important about this - first,it will also stop things that are not "bad" by the FSF definition, second - the FSF didn't write the software and does not own the copyright on it or have any obligation owed to them by the authors - attempted name changes or not.
It is up to the FSF to convince the authors that any new licences are a good idea - the implication
Re:I can see both sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Partly. Most programs under the GPL retain the GPL v.2 or later options, meaning redistributors and authors of derivative works can update the license to the newer version at their discretion. This is by design, so that the FSF can update the GPL, should loopholes appear or technology change the situation and allow code to be updated to more recent versions, _even when authors are out of touch or dead or otherwise_.
The Linux
Re:I can see both sides (Score:2)
Are you saying the FSF can switch the work of an author to a different licence when the authors are opposed to the new licence and this is a good thing? If you don't turn the copyright over to the FSF this is not possible - and I've always believed the author should retain the copyright of the work to stop exactly this sort of sillyness happening.
If the views of the author do not
Re:I can see both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about, we could eventually face a situation where it is literally impossible to develop FOSS for the latest generation of computers. Worse, those computers could be running the GPLv2 software we wrote even though we have lost all of our rights to further modify it and we've lost the right to even choose what software we run on our own computers.
Has Linus sold out? (was: Re:I can see both sides (Score:4, Insightful)
First a minor point which keeps getting overlooked. With DRM hardware, you cannot verify GPL compliance. The only way to verify that a set of source code purporting to represent the binary that is running, is really the binary that is running, is to compile from that source and run the new binary. Any hardware that requires signed binaries prevents this unless signature capability is given to anyone who wants it. Thus without GPLv3, there cannot be public verification that any vendor of supposedly-GPL software for "trusted" hardware really is complying with the GPL. So another way to characterize the anti-DRM provision would be to call it verifiability.
Now, DrJimbo in parent post:
Right, exactly - And this is what Torvalds consistently refuses to address. He snipes at GPLv3 with invective and complaints about the process (and if he really was the poster in the Groklaw thread, about the definition of source code), etc.. But on the hardware issue he just flippiantly declares that if you don't like the inability to run modified GPL code on the same device, get some other device.
This obviously ignores the "trusted computing" initiative that is intended to make all PCs slave devices, and is progressing like an onrushing freight train while DRM apologists quibble on the tracks and say "let's wait and see what it really turns out to be" or "how it is used" - then of course it will be too late.
This makes me wonder of a darker possibility which I do not like to think of ,but it fits the facts: Has Linus sold out? This is suggested by another poster below and in this post at the Newsforge thread: [newsforge.com]
Otherwise why does Linus fail to address the real and appropriate concerns about TC hardware becoming exclusively available?
Re:Has Linus sold out? (was: Re:I can see both sid (Score:3, Interesting)
You're calling me a troll? You're the one suggesting that Linus has sold out. I'm not even a big Linus fan, but I'm aware of his contributions and I have respect for the man. And it amazes me that you could even ask that question about him. It's really astonishing. How can you main
Re:I can see both sides (Score:2)
If you find such a situation impossible to believe, just compare the price of a winmodem to a real modem
Re:I can see both sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain to me how the existence of the GPLv3 will prevent developers from licensing their software under the GPLv2.
Re:I can see both sides (Score:2)
I can see both sides too and Linus have lof of it's points right (DRM is *legitive* way of protecting something, now what, we could not have crypt software in GPLv3? Crypt software in combining with hardware - I see lot of real legal use).
If you don't like DRM - don't buy products with it (Music CD and DVDs). If you don't like softwar
Re:I can see both sides (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but in reality, it requires political fight, because our opponents have took it to political level - they don't want to market to deside that DRM is bad, they want law that protects DRM. They don't want to market to deside how much value is in code or product, no, for that they go to politics and buy ne
Re:I can see both sides (Score:3, Informative)
And that is exactly why the GPL is being updated.
Make no mistake - RMS may be driven by ethics, but the GPL is a practical solution to a practical problem.
GNU project non-existent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GNU project non-existent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GNU project non-existent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Show it. Show us a completely usable system, running a Linux kernel and no GNU stuff. I don't think it can be done.
On the other hand, Debian with a BSD kernel and Debian with a Hurd kernel are both available.
Re:GNU project non-existent? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, I've proposed releasing Windows Vista under the GPL.
Re:GNU project non-existent? (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, icc cannot reliably compile a runnable kernel.
Re:GNU project non-existent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GNU project non-existent? (Score:3, Informative)
My point doesn't need all utilities to be written by the FSF, of course. The parent merely implied that the FSF didn't do *any* coding toward his software freedom in ignorance. My pointing of *some* contradicts a statement that there were none at all.
If you missed these connections, I apologize and stress that I will point out the doubly (and more) obvious in future posts. I should have known bet
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn those FSF nuts for never writing any software that's good enough for use. After all, everyone knows that all you need is a bare kernel to get things done.
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:5, Interesting)
But...I dunno. Until Linux came along, these things seemed a bit on the fringe to me, except for Emacs, which predates the FSF anyway. I installed GCC and GDB once or twice in the early 90s, but it never did as good a job as the compiler and debugger you always got along with your proprietary Unix, which you got along with your workstation. (The $1000 license fee being peanuts compared to the $40,000 hardware anyway.)
So at least in my experience -- and I admit I was a scientific programmer, a user, and not a systems programmer or applications developer -- the GNU tools were pretty much just curiosities until Linux made it possible to run Unix on your PC. Now that was a Great Thing. All the elegance, stability, security and network-savviness of the work computer now available at home. Very nice. And the GNU tools made that possible, yes. But the free kernel was the keystone to that arch, I think. Linux could have squeaked by with few less GNU tools (albeit not without GCC), but I think all the GNU tools would have remained curiosities without the free kernel. As soon as a great free Unix existed, a lot of people jumped in to add what was still missing, like a fancy desktop instead of plain old X and fvwm, drivers, or package managers instead of a giant tarball and a 64kb README. But would people have ever jumped in to create the kernel, knowing the various GNU system applications already existed? Well, they didn't -- not until Linus. Maybe it had to wait until hardware prices came down, so if it hadn't been Linus it would've been someone else anyway. But maybe it's also harder for people to get excited when they see a bunch of pieces lying around, so that if maybe you built the central piece you could assemble everything into a coherent whole. Maybe it's easier to get excited when you can see a working model, even if it's crude and belches smoke everywhere, and could use some serious extra tinkering to work better. It's from that point of view that I think Linux has inspired and will inspire more people to do OSS work, or use it, than GNU. Maybe Linus is Shakespeare stealing Roger Bacon's plays -- but it's nevertheless Shakespeare who gets remembered in the history books.
Also, what I recall (vaguely) is that between '85 and '95 or so, the GNU kernel was always coming along Real Soon Now, but seemed stuck because they wanted to Get It Right. Let's just pass lightly over the gcc/egcs wierdness, which is maybe harder to understand than the Pope's nuanced position on masturbation among priests. I think substantial dithering got short-circuited by Linus, and by the people fired up about Linux,
Now, I'm not saying RMS or the FSF's work isn't highly valuable. The value of their work isn't what I'm talking about at all. What I'm saying is that I think the future belongs more to people like Linus -- that they will have more lasting influence -- because, as the OP said, they seems more focussed on getting stuff out the door, and the FSF (and RMS in particular) seem more focussed on making sure it's the right stuff, built with the right moral philosophy, isn't going to exploit the masses or give you karma, et cetera. In all my working experience, folks who spend substantial amounts of energy on the aesthetics of their product rather than on its bare ugly function get chewed up by the real world sooner or later. Jobs and NeXT, Betamax vs. VHS, Multics, DEC's Alpha chip -- tragedies like that come to mind. The perfect is often the enemy of the good, as they say.
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:5, Insightful)
The GNU project was trying to create a free version of Unix - the GNU system - and was going about it in a systematic fashion, one tool at the time. The kernel was left until last, and Linux simply happened to come at the right moment, when most of the system was already up and running but the kernel wasn't.
As it happens, the GNU project does have a working kernel of their own, HURD. HURD never really took off, mainly because Linux got the snowball effect going - it got some users, some of whom began co-developing it, making it better, which in turn gained it more users and more developers and so on. Linux has almost all the developers, so HURD has almost none.
But thinking that Linux is the true success story and the GNU project just a less important side path is absurd. It's the GNU project that made Linux possible, not the other way around.
You think that Linux - a single operating system kernel - is going to have more lasting influence than the whole free software movement, of which the Linux kernel is just a part of ? Especially when what allowed Linux to grow in the first place was the development model made possible by the GPL ?
I beg to differ.
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:4, Insightful)
GNU is what made Linux possible. Linux is what made GNU successful.
They need each other. They're both necessary and important. Why quibble over which one is more necessary and important?
LK
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:5, Insightful)
There already was a free kernel. It was called BSD, and it ran on VAX and a few other things. Due to an SCO-like lawsuit, the first x86 port was delayed by a few months, and it wasn't really ready until 1992. By this time, you could build a complete Free Software system on x86 without Linux.
These days, there are at least three Free direct descendants of the BSD kernel in active development. One is even supported by the Debian project; you can swap out the Linux kernel and install a FreeBSD kernel under Debian, and not notice the difference. Even Linux binaries work, since it has a system call translation layer (with a negligible performance hit.
The GNU project created more than just a compiler, a shell, and a few bits of userspace. I would not be at all surprised if you are running an order of magnitude (or more) more GNU code than Linux. If you're running GNOME, then you certainly are (you know what the G stands for, I presume).
Trying to build a Free Software system without Linux is trivial; I have three machines that I use regularly without a single line of proprietary code on them, and none of them runs Linux. Trying to build Free Software system without any GNU code is almost impossible.
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:4, Insightful)
not everybody cares about GNU's philosophy, and they certainly didn't invent the idea of open source or free (little-f) software. using the broader definition of "free software", you can do exactly what you're asking with BSDs with not too much work at all, and there's plenty of free (even OSI-approved) systems out there which contain no GPL code at all (see Plan 9 for an example). you have a very narrow view of the world is all.
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:2)
BSD4.4 (the first release fully free of USL code) was released at roughly the same time as linux went 1.0.
However, despite having a "more free" license than Linux, and often technically better implementations, the entire *BSD family has yet to garner a tenth of the vitality that Linux has. Can I prove that Linux's popularity over the BSD camp's is due to the GPL -- nope, but it is one very strong differentiator a
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:4, Insightful)
And I think this was the most damn part of his indictment of the FSF. That they're hate and fear based, and when you let hate and fear dictate your principals, you end up hurting yourself and those you want to help. A good example of this is the whole issue of specific code tied to hardware. The FSF wants so badly to hurt DRM that they are willing to hurt legitimate uses. The funny part is that DRM is going to turn out to be a non-issue. DRM is not going to be relevant for long, with no action from the FSF*.
Really, though, the ones that are going to wind up getting hurt are the FSF themselves. It will be a lot easier to rewrite the userland than it will be to rewrtire the kernel. Or so I'm told.
Some people will take up GPLv3, but I think the majority will continue to use the GPLv2. The GPLv3 people will risk getting left behind.
*Here's why DRM will fail on it's own: at this point in history, when a cartel of copyright holders are trying to wall off culture and charge admission, we have unprecedented new tools for the creation, marketing, and distribution of culture. The more that these culture holding companies try to control culture and withhold it, the more new culture will rush in to take its place. The more new culture developed, the less overall value for the walled off culture. There is no scarcity of culture and there will not be a scarcity of culture. On the contrary, music, literature, and art are set to explode. The power of the culture holding companies is already broken. Now it's just the long unwinding of their monopolies.
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:3, Funny)
And we all know that this leads directly to the dark side.
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL didn't destroy SCO, although it certainly played a part in events and may still play a part. First and foremost, SCO destroyed itself, because (as many guessed and as it now seems clear) they never had a case to begin with. All they had was a scheme (or three).
wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
No, he has not. All Linus did was write a kernel. If he hadn't done so, there were half a dozen alternatives about to become available. Most likely, if Linus had been run over by a truck, we'd be running the BSD kernel now, or some Mach derivative.
Proving once again the superiority of actually getting working technology out the door, versus spending a decade or so fine-tuning your philosophy about how to begin working on the great
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:2)
Re:yeah but guess who owns the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hurd is a failure because Linux exists. Without Linux, the same developers working on it would be working on Hurd (or a fork of hurd).
I seriously doubt that. Hurd development was slow before linux existed, and it remains slow after linux came to life. Now it's 15 years since linux was first created, and linux is at this stage the centerpiece of an entire industry of software products and services. Meanwhile, lots of other operating systems have been written from scratch, and I can probably list dozens th
Managing requirements (Score:2)
There is a lot of waffle in the article about listening to people but nobody had presented a simple table showing the requirements for GPLv3 in different drafts. This is the sort of thing you do to design commercial software and I would expect that the same approach would make the GPL more transparent.
If they want to give Torvalds's input a low priority then show that somehow. Otherwise show where his input has gone.
I don't want to take sides in the Linus v RMS thing here, I am just a bit sick of people h
Re:Managing requirements (Score:2)
I don't see any real refutation of Linus's points in the article. It reads more like a personal attack, or at least an unsubstantiated one.
Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire kernel, and all contributions from hundreds or thousands of people, are explicitly licensed as GPL version 2. Even if the kernel people were rabidly enthusiastic about GPL v3, they'd have a very, very difficult time changing the license in any case; as a practical matter it'd probably be impossible. So what Torvalds, in the guise of kernel maintainer, thiks of the license is not really relevant since the licence, no matter what it looks like, would never be used by the kernel in any case.
Torvalds views as an OSS developer are of course relevant - but as one voice among the hundreds of other leading developers in various projects. And as has been pointed out, if he really wanted to be constructive he'd have joined in the debate itself, rather than just sniping at it via the media.
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:2, Informative)
I still own copyright on the little pieces of the kernel that I wrote.
The only rights anyone else has are those granted by the GPL 2.
Changing the kernel license is impossible. Many contributions have been made by people who are now unreachable, dead, or simply disagree with a license change.
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:2)
Hence the silly name change suggestion of LiGnuX - later revised to the irrelevant gnu/linux. Call it Ubuntu, Fedora, Gentoo or whatever instead if that is what you are talking about - I'm sick of newbies flaming me when I don't call the kernel gnu/linux becuase they think it is a gnu project and RMS wrote most of it.
I for one have a nvidia binary kernel module loaded which would never have been
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:2)
Whoever wrote that particular bit of code. That's one of the amazing things about the way the GPL is written, it takes what would normally be a complete mess and makes it workable. And not only that, but by having each coder retain copyright to what they wrote, you also create a huge body of people who have standing to sue were someone to violate the GPL.
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:2)
As understand the GPL license, even the copyright owner can not change the license. If you could change the license then this would be a big problem for anyone who depended on GPL software. At any time your software could become illegal. Instea
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite true. The GPL does not (and cannot) reduce the rights of the copyright owner. The only thing that can do that is assignment of the copyright to another entity.
The GPL can not be unilaterally revoked. This means that code, once licensed under the GPL, remains under the GPL. The copyright owner is still free to release it under other licenses, however. If they do, then users of the code may have the choice as
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Linux beside the point here? (Score:2)
Linus (Score:5, Interesting)
And when he said that nothing much changed between the second and third drafts, he was not only being flippant, but ignorant. Many of the changes were in direct response to criticisms he made.
GPLv3 will happen regardless of whether or not it is accepted for the Linux kernel. I'm not sure they need to make Linus happy. I think the GPL crew needs to make the license best suit their needs.
Regardless, I don't think Linus will back down and accept it any time in the future. He has been very clear that the kernel is to be licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv2 exclusively.
Re:Linus (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman's license has stymied a large nest of very nasty people for 20 years, people who would steal Linus blind if it weren't for Stallman and his vision. And given Stallman's record, dedication, and results, if he sees issues with patents and DRM, if I were Linus, I'd listen first, and then ask respectful questions via professional channels.
Based on the past 20 years, and the benefits that will accrue to all of us due to his work, Richard Stallman is deserving of a Nobel prize nomination. Linus is just a developer and project manager, and he should show Stallman commensurate respect.
jwwjr
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Interesting)
My best bet is that Linus doesn't actually want to understand the GPL v3. Linux is eminently practical, and the practical thing to do to increase Linux usage, fix bugs, and add new features is to make Linux corporate friendly. A *lot* of contributions come from the likes of IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Novell, and other companies. I bet the prospect of these companies pulling out their support is a major consideration (whether intentional or not).
Re:Linus (Score:2, Insightful)
> the future. He has been very clear that the kernel is to be licensed under
> GPLv2 and GPLv2 exclusively.
However, if the compiler that they use to compile the binary versions of the Kernel is licenced under the GPL v3, then wouldn't the Kernel also need to be licenced under the GPL v3?
Surely GNU/Linux is an ecosystem, and the Kernel is but one part of that ecosystem that would not be able to function without all the rest of
Re:Linus (Score:2)
Just because an office suite might be under the GPL, that does not mean documents created by it are under the GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linus (Score:2)
Re:Linus (Score:2)
---------------
The above comment is released under the houghi license, whatever that is. =)
Re:Linus (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Linus (Score:2)
Just because one part of the kernel shifts to GPLv3, I don't think that requires the entire kernel to migrate to the new license.
Re:Linus (Score:2)
GPL is non-revocable. This means that if you licensed out some code under GPL v2, it will forever stay licensed under GPL v2. You may, of course, al
Translation of Torvalds' attack (Score:2, Interesting)
Torvalds complained that the FSF didn't listen to people's comments.
What he really meant was, "The FSF listened to everybody's comments, instead of just doing what I told them to do."
The experience of being a benevolent dictator in one area has given him the idea that he should be a benevolent dictator in other areas.
Re:Translation of Torvalds' attack (Score:2)
I think you have it backwards - remember who it is that insists on a name change another persons project to "advertise" the gnu project and bring attention to the FSF.
It is up to the FSF to convice others that changing to a different licence is a good thing - instead of some overbearing person insisting that people have to change because they said so. If I was Linus my polite response would b
Re:Translation of Torvalds' attack (Score:2, Informative)
Are you referring to the term GNU/Linux? In this case, you are wrong. Stallman does not insist on Linus to change the name of Linux, he just insists on using the term GNU/Linux when referring to a working (GNU/)Linux system, which contains a lot more than the Linux kernel. I understand his argument, and in principle I agree, but using the term GNU/Linux in practice is unduly complex.
Re:Translation of Torvalds' attack (Score:2)
Article is one-sided (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read TFA, but noticed most arguments against Linus' option are made by members of the Open Source / Free Software communities. It would be more interesting to hear the feedback from commercial party's who're involved with Linux as well (e.g. Novell, HP, Oracle, Trolltech). This doesn't exactly put any weight under the arguments of the article.
I believe Linus is more open towards commercial development then most FLOSS community members are. This makes it understandable why he is so against enforcing freedom through everyones throats. Linus has always been the more practical type.
Re:Article is one-sided (Score:5, Insightful)
The DRM provisions in the GPLv3 that Linus is complaining about are there to help ensure that FOSS developers like Linus will not be locked out from developing software on future generations of computers.
Furthermore, if we are locked out from developing FOSS on those computers, we can take some comfort in the fact that it will be illegal to run GPLv3 code on them.
Re:Article is one-sided (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Article is one-sided (Score:3, Informative)
All Trusted Computing provides is a means to verify remotely what software is running on a given system. Cisco have already developed routers which can be set up to only route traffic from something running "approved" software.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2003/11/19/BUGP6351V31.DTL [sfgate.com]
If they only way for your software to be "approved" is that it's the version your vendor shipped & signed, then it matters not whether or not you can mod
Re:Article is one-sided (Score:3, Informative)
I imagine it means we could find ourselves in a situation where the Playstation 4 or XBOX 3 actually runs Linux. But while the code is "open," licensed under the GPLv2, all the cryptographic nonsense and DRM closes it ba
Re:Article is one-sided (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that it is short sighted, I think it's short sighted for different reasons.
I don't think that GPL3 proponents in the Linux development community have any problem with the Linux kernel being licensed under GPL 2. The problem is that it's GPL 2 only, so it can never be changed in the future by future maintainers of Linux without a complete rewrite. If there's a serio
Re:I think Linus is right (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a moot argument anyway. In twenty years time, the web will have indeed reduced whatever OS we use into a poorly-debugged set of device drivers. Try applying the Four Freedoms to Google or other web applications that you use.
The answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
And besides. In this "GPL vs Proprietary! White vs Black!" debate that's been going on past 15-aught years, I've sided with NetBSD.
-uso.
Re:Wow, you missed the whole point of the DRM clau (Score:3)
Re:Wow, you missed the whole point of the DRM clau (Score:3, Informative)
They've chosen to not make money from the code by releasing it under the license they have. If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it.
Re:Wow, you missed the whole point of the DRM clau (Score:3, Informative)
Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism. Once you understand that, you might have an idea of why Torvalds' criticisms have validity.
Who cares what Linus thinks about the GPLv3? (Score:4, Informative)
Because of that, who really cares what Linus has to say about the GPLv3? He's made it pretty clear he doesn't like it, but the only work that he's producing that anyone cares about is Linux. And the Linux kernel will never be anything other than GPLv2. Even if they
Personally, I don't give a damn if Linus likes GPLv3 or not. Its not about Linus, its about everyone in the Free software community as a whole. Individuals can go shoot their feet off instead of their mouth. Its about whats best for the majority, not just Linux or just Gnome or just GCC or just whatever...
[/rant]
Forget RMS and L****s. License how you want (Score:3, Insightful)
The situation (Score:4, Insightful)
For the other lesser cases where there isn't such a barrier to entry I don't see that there's a problem. If someone makes a DVD player that is unmodifyable and publishes the source of it's operating system then if there's a market for a modfiyable one a competitor can simply take the published source and build a competing product. There can also be some legitimate reasons to prevent people from modifying software - "If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish." - sounds to me like it would be impossible to make a GPL'd game that did any kind of hacked client prevention.
I think a likely outcome of all this is that any hardware manufacturer who would be likely to fall foul of these clauses will simply switch to using a non-GPL operating system, commercial or BSD and consequently Linux will miss out on contributions to infrastruture such as embedded cpu support that it might otherwise have recieved. The MPAA (or whoever it is who controls it) may also choose not to grant licences to hardware manufactuers who produce devices can run modified code that they fear could be used to circumvent their DRM.
Refuted? (Score:3, Informative)
Thats some pretty strong language, and isn't at all appropriate for this discussion as it primarily involves opinions rather than facts. Linus disagrees with the direction GPLv3 is taking, which is his right to do. To 'refute' those comments, you would basically have to prove he has no problem with GPLv3.
Who the hell wrote this article, Richard Stallman?
But does it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. locked digital media
This is where the GPLv3 works, sort of. You cannot take a GPLv3ed media player, add some DRM component, and distribute the result while keeping the key that unlocks the media secret. That's fair. Unfortunately, there is a large range of non-GPLed media players available. In the end, FOSS users will still have to resort to hacks, but they're not worse off in that respect than they are now, and at least the code they worked on won't be used to prevent them from doing what they want.
2. locked FOSS-using devices (the Tivo scenario)
I think the FSF, and software developers advocating GPLv3, are seriously overstepping their bounds here. Basically, they're telling hardware developers that in order to use FOSS, not only do they need to give freely what they freely received (which is just reasonable), but they also have to make THEIR OWN product convertable to any use their customers see fit. This immediately excludes building devices that need to assure overall system integrity (from fair network gaming through to voting machines) and also excludes a number of fairly reasonable business models (hardware has a significantly non-zero duplication cost, unlike software, and the money has to come from somewhere). Alternatively, they can choose to make their machines physically tamper-proof (which defeats the intent of the license, makes the license unverifiable, and the product unrepairable in case of software problems). The net result will simply be that hardware developers will stop considering the use of FOSS, which will lead to them getting what they want anyway, FOSS code getting less exposure and less fixes, and end users receiving an arguably less technologically sound product at a higher price.
3. locked general-purpose computers
The GPLv3 can't do squat about thread 3. If such devices do indeed appear, they will simply not be running FOSS. Ever. Because even if a vendor would like to offer an OS based on some hypothetical GPLv3ed kernel, the license wouldn't allow it.
So, looking at the above, I can't help but think that Linus is right here. I have the utmost respect for RMS and the members of the various committees, I'm even a paid-up and (CD-)card-carrying member of the FSF (#2342), but so far they have failed in providing a satisfactory solution to the problems ahead.
Please prove me wrong.
Re:But does it help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But does it help? (Score:3, Interesting)
My basic objections - in soundbite form, as unfortunately encouraged by the interface - seem to have been submitted already; I'll still mail the text below to the comment system, in the hope that a human being might encounter it somewhere in there.
> [...] (I'm on Committee D, in case it wasn't clear.) You can see what else I've written on it [...]here: http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk/projects/gpl v3/issue [donarmstrong.com]
refutation doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be that the other GNU project tools like gcc are indispensible parts of the Linux operating system. I don't know enough to know for sure. But the Linux kernel is also an indispensible part, and if you start having the operating system split between GPLv2 and GPLv3, new projects will justified in following the Linux kernel's lead and sticking with GPLv2.
Another issue here that may not be fully appreciated is that many people already think that GPLv2 already goes too far. By going even farther, GPLv3 is going to turn off even more people to the GPL project. It may be that the goals it establishes are justified. But if even Linus Torvalds is turned off by this, I wonder what corporate users of Linux will say...?
Also - one theory I'd like to just throw out there is the possibility that while current replacements for many of the GNU tools may be lacking, if they adopt GPLv3 and corporate customers like Google and Sun don't like them because of restrictions on usage, they may spearhead the development of replacements.
Likewise, any GPL version that places clear requirements on web applications developed using programs under that version (e.g. you must GPL those web applications) will never see adoption by Google etc. Assuming this is where FSF is going, the GPL will ultimately destroy itself by becoming too extreme.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure to happen (Score:2)
Re:Sure to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been seeing senseless rants like this increasingly on Slashdot. It's like some superstition. All Trusted Computing does is give ownership of a computer to whoever owns the master keys.
If you have the master keys (as you would, on a box you built yourself) then Trusted Computing means you *really* own your computer. You ca
What if any is his affiliation with Transmeta now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Was he free to criticize platforms locked into Digital Restrictions Management while working for a company that helps build them (most recently FlexGo [transmeta.com] for Microsoft BTW) ?
Does he still have relevant ties to (t)his (former?) employer during/after
Re:Sure to happen (Score:2, Interesting)
Your way past out on a limb. I think you've fallen deeply into your own crevice.
On what basis can you make such an allegation? Someone disagrees with you, so they must be corrupt? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Re:Sure to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone disagrees with you, so they must be a troll? What the fuck is wrong with you
"vote with your wallet" doesn't work (Score:4, Informative)
First, the market is not granular enough. The consumer will never be given the choice of DRM'd CDs vs. DRMless CDs. The options are decided by marketing teams, and they will give consumers choices such as DRM'd CDs or nothing.
Secondly, like a mutual-loss based price war between two companies where the rich one waits for the poorer one to run out of funds, in this battle, if the consumers ever lose, there is no way back. Once DRM is pervasive, consumers no longer have any way to leverage the DRMers. If an ISP wants people to accept worse service, they have to offer something (such as a lower price) constantly. If a company wants consumers to accept DRM, they just have to get consumers to accept this once and to purchase DRM'd hardware (and they do this by leveraging a tangental market, such as the content industry), and then there is no way for the consumer to roll this back.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The GPL needs to go (Score:3)
Ext2 is ancient. Don't use it. Instead use a journalled filesystem such as Ext3 and ReiserFS, the latter being my favorite for production environment. Both ext2 and ext3 filesystems can be easily defragged with e2defrag. Although, Ext3 and ReiserFS both have technologies to prevent major defragmentation.
Token ring? Please. Nobody really makes good tokenring equipment anymore (if they
Re:The GPL needs to go (Score:3, Informative)
Parent blatently incorrect (Score:2)
A: You are *NOT* under any obligation whatsoever to release your sou
Re:The GPL needs to go (Score:4, Funny)
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
You sure have some really dumb lawyers. How much do you pay them?
Re:The GPL needs to go (Score:2)
However, GPLv3 seems to be changing control to beyond mere distribution. That is at the heart of this debate.
Re:nothing to see, move along (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a danger, however. How great this danger is is anyone's guess. It might be fairly minor. Here's how I see it:
If the OSS development communit