GPLv3 - A Primer on Open Warfare in Open Source

savio13 writes "A BusinessWeek article about the GPLv3 starts to shed some light on where things are, and what the hold up is in getting the newest version out. They discuss the Stallman vs. Torvalds conflict, issues with DRM, the goal of 'one-stop licensing', and the ever-more-likely possibility that the newest version of the GPL just isn't relevant." From the article: "The impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software. And the resulting rifts were apparent at last week's LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco. On one side is Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too. Companies will just vote with their feet."

Re:This explains an email I got

[eln]

Linus didn't write it, though. Linus wrote the original kernel. Much of the operating system (meaning the kernel plus system utilities) is GNU software, many of which existed as mature software well before the Linux kernel came about, which is where the GNU/Linux argument comes from.

I agree with you that trying to get people to refer to it as GNU/Linux is a lost battle, but to say the reason is because Linus wrote it is silly. Stallman has probably written more code that is currently used in the Linux operating system than Torvalds has.

Here's the newsforge article, plus 2 other links

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Here's the newsforge story ("Torvalds' comments on GPLv3 committees refuted") [newsforge.com].

I blogged about this and added more info about the committees [fsfe.org].

One last think I want to point at is a side-by-side diff with the changes highlighted [fsfeurope.org] from draft 1 to draft 2 so everyone can see the responses to the public process that the committees talk about in the Newsforge article.

GPL is to prevent commercial plundering

[mclemenc]

I have always thought that the prinicpal practical reason for the GPL (aside from the philosophical reasons of freedom) is that without the safeguards of having to release modified code, a company can use the vast library of GPL software to short-cut their development process and then make profits without having to financially recognise the contribution from the legions of people who have contributed. Like patents and copyright, the GPL is a bargain between contributors in addition to those provided by usual copyright protection - sure you can use this code, but contribute the results back into the pool, if you don't like it fine but develop your own.

This is why the Tivoisation problem is so difficult, in principal you have the software but you would also require to build new hardware for it run on - the new GPL is an attempt to deal with this but is in my opinion slightly misguided as GPL deals with software abstractions and it would be very difficult to make restrictions restriction on the hardware that abstraction executes on. Hardware is covered by different legislation anyway and no software developer can insist that the designs for the hardware are also released. However, the flipside is that Tivo other projects have gained enormously from the use of GNU/Linux code and should have an obligation back to the contibutors for that commercial advantage.

Have any of you *actually* read the GPLV3 draft?

[Colin Smith]

Please read...

http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html [fsf.org]

 

Re:This explains an email I got

[eln]

The linux kernel can be used more or less standalone or with non GNU tools and it'll still be linux. Remove the kernel from linux and what have you got? A bunch of unrunnable tools.

You can run all of the GNU tools on a wide variety of other kernels, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The GNU set of tools existed well before Linux, and they would certainly have a great deal of value even if Linux had never been written. The Linux kernel without any tools at all is essentially useless. What's the point of having a running kernel if you don't even have a shell?

Calling it GNU/Linux acknowledges the fact that GNU tools have always provided a big part of the core of the operating system. However, that's not to say that I personally advocate calling it GNU/Linux. Personally, I think that name is just to cumbersome to ever gain widespread acceptance, and it's pointless to try and get people to use it.

+1 Pedantic

[Cadre]

And here is way - if it was true than Microsft and Apple should be calling their software "BSD/Windows" and "BSD/OSX", since they both have lots of BSD software in them.

Apple refers to the Mac OS X kernel as XNU [wikipedia.org]. "Mac OS X" is generic enough that it encompasses the userland and kernel all at the same time.

then Linus made a mistake

[m874t232]

On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too."

If that's truly Linus's opinion, then Linus should have picked the BSD license for his kernel, not GPLv2.

In any case, look at the relative success of the BSD and Linux kernels. The BSD kernel was much further advanced when Linux first came out, yet the Linux kernel is much more popular. At the very least, its GPLv2 license doesn't seem to have been in the way.

And, frankly, personally I really don't care about Linus's opinion anyway; the only part Linus provides for the "Linux" operating system is the kernel. If the Linux kernel project fell apart for whatever reason, the impact on Ubuntu, RedHat, Fedora, SuSE, etc. would be small since the Linux kernel would be replaced fairly quickly.

Re:Here's the newsforge article, plus 2 other link

[Hope Thelps]

Say I run a net café and I want to lock down my computers to only run software I've signed to prevent malware and untrustworthy patrons more messing up the computers. According to the GPLv3, I can't do that. I'd have to give up my private key to anyone using the computers.

Okay, I have to say that personally I think you're completely wrong. The GPL3 only requires that you provide the keys to anyone you distribute the software to. If you sold them the computers, or gave them away or possibly even if you rented them out for people to take away then sure that would be distribution. But that isn't the case for a net café.

However, if you really feel that the GPL3 terms could have the effect you describe then contact the FSF about it, because that's certainly not the effect they're aiming for.

Re:Serious question about GPL2/GPL2+/GPL3

[Hope Thelps]

You're right that you can't link GPL3 only code to GPL2 only code. One or other author would have to dual license.

You're wrong that there couldn't be a gradual migration, at least if I understand what you mean correctly. For a gradual migration each author would have to initially dual license under version 2 and version 3 (or version 2 and any later version). Then when you reach the point where there is no longer any version 2 only code left, you release as version 3 only. In practice that would mean replacing the code of anyone not willing to make the change. If Linux is one of those people then no chance. If he isn't then it'd still be tricky.

Re:Stallman is proposing OSS suicide

[MooUK]

You misunderstand the new version of the GPL entirely.

You don't have to share your encryption key, as long as someone without it can modify the software and have it run as normal. Your signing key is yours alone, and as long as your program will run after modification without it, you're fine. The only time you have to share such a key is if it impossible to run a modified copy of the software on the relevant hardware without that key.

Re:DRMed hardware

[Sloppy]

The hardware isn't free but I really think that is something _software_ license isn't supposed to deal with.

Please read this. [oreilly.com] Basically, the whole point of the software license is to deal with unfree hardware, such as .. oh, say .. a Xerox printer.