Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3

diegocgteleline.es writes "A group of 29 Linux kernel developers have recently come together and produced a position statement on GPLv3 (PDF, txt) explaining why, essentially, they don't like it. 'The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current license proposal ... we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanization of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely'. They've also run a GPLv3 poll."

Re:Notable names *not* on the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Cox and Linus Tourvalds have spoken out on the GPL3 separately. Linus Tourvalds is against it, Alan Cox thinks it's sensible.

Re:Notable names *not* on the list

[InsaneGeek]

Looks at list of kernel developers from the poll result link...

#1 Linux Torvalds gives the v3 draft a -2.5 (somewhere between really dislike it and thinks that v3 is much worse than v2)
#2 Alan Cox gives the v3 draft a -2 (thinks v3 is much worse than v2)

Huh?

[Kjella]

Notable names not on the list

Yes, they are:

Name Vote
Linus Torvalds -2.5
Alan Cox -2.0

To summarise

[jb.hl.com]

In case you don't want to read the whole text, they think that GPLv3 is bad because:

• The FSF has an implicit trust from developers, users and distributors.
• The use of GPLv3 as a tool against DRM co-opts the work of thousands of people for the FSF's political ends, which they consider a violation of said trust (they do consider DRM a bad thing, they just don't want to be pulled into the FSF's war against it).
• The additional restrictions clause will be a licensing headache for distributors and may cause splintering among the community depending on what restrictions are included.
• The patents clause would make corporations even hosting GPLv3 programs on their website untenable, and might stop needed financial and programming contributions from the corporate world.
• Those three reasons even individually are reason enough to reject GPLv3, and if those clauses are taken out of GPLv3 then it's only a marginal improvement over v2 which simply isn't worth the headache. They also feel that because the FSF will be converting all of its projects over to v3, this will lead to Balkanisation inside the FLOSS community. [wikipedia.org]

Re:The resurgence of the BSD license?

[drinkypoo]

Finally, using the word rape is way over the top and trivializes a real problem in society -- I'm sure you didn't mean too, but you can get your point across while toning it down a bit too.

This is way OT but this is a stupid argument. "rape" is from a middle english word which means "to seize or carry off by force" and one of the commonest meanings of the word is "an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside." You would know this if you actually knew anything about english, but you can't get the whole to/too thing right, so I guess I shouldn't expect too much. Or to much, for that matter.

Your ignorance does not change the meaning of the word, just your inference, which is wrong because again, you have an insufficient grasp on this language.

If English is your first language, shame on you. You need to spend less time typing and more time reading. If it's your second language, why don't you actually learn it before you start lecturing people on their word choices?

Forking won't license Linux under GPLv3

[McDutchie]

Those of us who care will probably fork Linux (which *can* be done, dispite Linus' incorrect claims to the contrary). It's going to have to be done sooner or later anyway.

They can fork Linux all they want, and to the best of my knowledge, Linus never denied that. But they can still not cause their fork to be licensed under the GPL version 3. The many copyright holders have specifically licensed their contributions to the kernel under the GPL version 2 only, and only the copyright holders can change the license under which a work is published. That's simply a fact.

Re:The resurgence of the BSD license?

[vertinox]

The resurgence of the BSD license?

The answer is no.

Because if you don't like GPLv3, then you can still use GPLv2 until the end of time.

This is what irks me about anyone voicing outrage over GPLv3 because no one is forcing anyone to use it nor does the GPLv2 around the world magically become GPLv3.

Only the author and copyright holder of the software can decide whether or not this will happen and even then... It won't magically causes its dirivatives to jump to GPLv3 by default

Its only if you go back and start using the new work that has been licensed by GPLv3 and if you don't like those terms then write your own code under whatever license you feel like.

Re:DRM isn't always a bad thing.

[Peter La Casse]

That's what the GPLv3 attempts to ensure: that for example the master keys controlling which programs can run on a computer are given to the owner of that computer, as opposed to preventing the owner from modifying the computer or its programs, or running other programs on the computer. It puts decision-making in the hands of the owner of the computer, where it belongs.

No it puts the power in to the hands of the FSF.

No doubt the FSF owns computers, yes, but if I am provided the master keys to my own computer, it puts that power in my hands, not the FSF's hands.

Again this is all ego as far as I can see.

The word is "principle". The FSF cares about certain things. It's ok if you don't; don't use GPLv3 in your software if you don't want to.

This might push people to BSD or OpenSolaris.

It might push corporations that way. To be honest, I'm not sure why corporations wanting the benefits of closed source software aren't already basing their products on *BSD.

Re:BSD License is better!

[T.E.D.]

Nothing's as FREE as BSD!

I disagree. Public Domain is more free than BSD (at least by any defition of "free" that makes BSD more free than GPL).

Re: Examples of Innocent Uses of DRM

[Grishnakh]

Don't be stupid. None of the things you listed are DRM. DRM, by definition, is hardware which prevents the user from accessing data on his own computer. Encrypting email, filesystems, etc. does not fall under that category, as the user knows the decryption key (unless he forgets it!) and can thus access the data.

DRM involves hardware which physically prevents the user from fully accessing his data. For example, the "Secure Audio Path" allows a user to play a DRM-infected media file ONLY on a certain computer, if the license is valid, and then it only allows the file to be used one way: for playback through special hardware that prevents anyone from tapping into the decrypted data stream at some point and making a digital copy. Want to make a backup copy? Too bad. Did the company you bought the file from go out of business, and now you can't play it? Too bad. That's DRM.

Or, how about a computer with a TCM chip on the motherboard which checks the operating system on boot-up, and refuses to boot an "unauthorized" OS? Yep, there's plans in the works for this too. That's DRM.

Read-only media is NOT DRM. Stop being silly.

Re:The resurgence of the BSD license?

[cswiger2005]

So good job, BSD guys. You almost had us all forced into using Windows, if it weren't for the GPL and Linux saving the day.

You seem to be confused. Maybe, if you accused the BSD camp of forcing people to use MacOS X, you might have something resembling a point. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be playing in the right ballpark. But if you feel you've been forced into using Windows, that's your choice and your problem, certainly not that of people writing BSD-licensed code.

Heck, even if you feel forced into running X-Windows-- which might also vaguely resemble a valid point, as I understand that many versions of Linux ship with the X11 Window environment integrated and required to even perform the initial system installation, in contrast to the actual BSD operating systems such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFly, and minor variants like PicoBSD or NanoBSD-- X11 is under the MIT license, not BSD.

But don't let the facts get in the way of an otherwise marvellous troll.

Re:but...

[Rich0]

I certainly think that trusted computing and DRM have places where they are important - medical, financial, and security environments come to mind immediately. The GPLv2 allows Linux and GNU software to be constructed & run in these environments.

How is that? If I sell somebody a DRMed heart monitor that does a self-integrity test, I must also give them the ability to defeat that test. That doesn't mean that they have to pass that ability on to anybody else, unless they give them the monitor. So, the hospital has the ability to sabotage its own equipment - that doesn't matter since they're not interested in doing this (otherwise why would they spend money on equipment that does self-integrity tests), and they don't have to pass this on to anyone else (their workers, patients, etc). It is the owner of the software that gets the keys to the kingdom in GPLv3 - it doesn't mean that banks need to give access codes to their ATMs out to anybody who has an ATM card.

The GPL only applies when you distribute software. If you don't distribute it, you don't need to pass on encryption keys/etc. If somebody steals it from you then you also don't need to pass on these keys. So, DRM can be used by the owner of a system to keep that system secure - which is a use of technology that I doubt the FSF would take issue with. What it prevents is the manufacturer of the system from keeping it locked up from being changed by the owner.

For me it's interesting to note that RMS has said that there would have been no issues with TIVO if they had used ROM instead of FLASH to store the software.

I don't see why this should be the case - software is software no matter what media it is stored on. The kernel is still copyrighted, so a license applies to its distribution. There is no reason other than the difficulty factor that a Tivo owner couldn't swap out some ROM chips - just look at console modders...

Re:Notable names *not* on the list

[Matt Perry]

Those of us who care will probably fork Linux (which *can* be done, dispite Linus' incorrect claims to the contrary).

I don't think anyone has said that you can't fork Linux. However, you can't relicense it. Only the copyright holders can do that. Good luck tracking down everyone who holds a copyright to code currently in the kernel and convincing them to relicense it. If some refuse then you could always rewrite those sections of code from scratch.

Not impossible but surely impractical.

They are the Top ~30 contributers + Alan Cox

[Chuck Chunder]

apparantly [gmane.org]

Dissect binaries

[rsilvergun]

can be done. Software hackers/crackers do it every day. I don't think it's trivial (unless the corporation is really clumsy, i.e. adding reams of new code/functions). e.g., a common way to crack a game is to start with the demo .exe and compare it to the one off the box. Use that to track down the code that checks for the CD and remove it (this is why game companies are copy protecting demos lately). A clever OS programmer ( or a member of his/her community ), could do the same with your libraries and thiers. Once that's done, it wouldn't be hard to threaten suite, and if all else failed sue and win.