Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3 395
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:BSD License is better! (Score:3, Insightful)
The BSD license also makes it nearly impossible to compete against proprietary software, since the proprietary software can always incorporate your improvements, but you can't incorporate its improvements.
Of course, people who licence stuff under the BSDL don't care about that (which is why they do so).
Re:Notable names *not* on the list (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Notable names *not* on the list (Score:5, Insightful)
Forcing a specific morality is not freedom any more than overthrowing one tyrant and replacing it with another is introducing democracy.
Then again, I love BSD licensing because in my opinion it is the free-est. It doesn't try to force a specific belief onto anyone, yet I haven't seen anyone hobbled by its lack of forward thinking yet. Freedom isn't demanding a social utopia, it is showing the light and the right way to go about things and hope others come to the same conclusion. Not everyone will -- it is human nature. However, there is less potential for the leaders to become corrupt when they cannot force the belief.
Ultimately, I think RMS has become corrupt with his own beliefs and if offered the power, would force others to follow his thinking. This is the case with v3. And this is where the most forward thinking is to take away the freedom from choice and demand people be allowed to make mistakes. V3 demands 100% adherence to the faith. V2 asks kindly that you remain faithful. BSD tells you that the faithful will remain devout but the choice is entirely yours.
Re:Notable names *not* on the list (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree with the Linux guys: the value of this new license does not justify the damage it will do by splitting the community.
Opinions (Score:4, Insightful)
5.1 DRM Clauses
Has any of these developers actually consulted with a good IPR lawyer before making these statements? They continue to bitch about the restrictions on "encryption", but I just don't see it, and neither does PJ of Groklaw.
5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause
They sort of have a point, but on the other hand, I think it would help greatly if GPL programs could implicitly link with OpenSSL, for example.
5.3 Patents Provisions
Personally, I like this clause. Of course, the problems would go away if software patents did too.
License proliferation
I think this line is rich:
<sarcasm>Sure guys, that's why you switched to GPLv2-only licensing: to reduce licensing profusion.</sarcasm>
Point by point summary (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Even one more open-source license is too many
3) We need corporate contributions to linux
4) We don't own the copyright so we can't change
5.1) *NO* DRM can be restricted unless absolutely ALL innocent use is allowed.
5.2) GPL3 will fragment licenses by being compatible with more of them
5.3) Companies cannot benefit from som GPL programs without giving up patent claims against all GPL programs (and we have to keep our corporate backers happy).
6) There is no reason at all to use GPL3. It provides absolutely nothing of value over GPL2.
Sorry but these reasons are just crap... 1) fear of change is not a reason, 2) there are hundreds of open-source licenses and one more is not going to break the camel's back, 3) pleasing corporations is not a tenant of oss and never has been, 4) they can change piecemeal on new parts, 5) drm is incompatible with oss, end-of-line, qed and 6) they are just being wankers.
Personally I've looked into the kernel a lot and I'm not all that impressed... the code is good and fast, but the design choices are sometimes pretty shabby. For example the IOKit c++ based driver model in OS X is far superior. Or take their diss'ing of DTrace for instance. In fact, I would love to see a split that creates an alternative kernel for Linux. It would be a great thing in the long run.
Let the free market handle it not the license... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a manufacturer creates hardware that limits a person's ability to modify the software that runs on it then let the market forces apply pressure. There won't be the plethora of open source software from the community to run on it and that will give an advantage to products that do allow the community to add to the product's value.
Interesting point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, tivoisation doesn't hurt Linux now because it's too big to kill that way, but it's an important point to consider. That, and the PS2/PS3 Linux, are examples of where I think the GPLv3 would help to capture the spirit of GPLv2. It's not that we care about DRM so much, it's that we don't want a corporation to be able to make a product based on Linux which doesn't allow the customer to make any changes at all. Having source code without being able to make useful changes and redistribute them makes such a Linux about as open as Java.
Which brings us to BSD -- Linus has said that he honestly doesn't care what anyone does with Linux. He really couldn't care if Tivo makes millions because they had access to his software. Which makes me wonder, again and again -- why didn't he use the BSD license, or worse, public domain it all? Because that really seems to be his attitude, and the attitude of these Linux developers.
Re:If it ain't broken (Score:5, Insightful)
It is getting broken. The current actions of certain companies to use the freedom of GPL code without passing on that same freedom to recepients of that code, through the use of, for example, DRM hardware detecting and preventing modification of the code, essentially is an example of 'broken'.
Anyone vaguely familiar with the history of the FSF and RMS can recall one of the origin stories of the FSF, involving RMS recieving a buggy printer driver he wasnt allowed to fix due to its proprietary nature and closed source. Had he recieved the source, but then the printer had refused to use the updated drivers, nobody can reasonably come to any other conclusion than that DRM restrictions on the running of GPL code would be just as disallowed in GPL v2.
The changes are exactly in line with the FSF reasoning, like it or not, and a natural evolution of the GPL to cope with new issues. Anyone more concerned with the freedom of those wanting to restrict others has a perfectly good selection of BSD type licenses to use. For those deliberatly and knowingly placing code under GPL these updates come as no surprise, and are not at all unwelcome.
Spirit of the GPL V2 (Score:3, Insightful)
" To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. "
This excerpt is especially stirking when applied to DRMd software. When someone distributes a DRM'd software system that it is often the case that the maker of the software system has more rights than the reciever of them. For instance, a person recieving a TiVo software system, they have implicitly been denied certain rights due to the nature of the software distribution (which, in this case, is dependent upon a hardware system).
I believe that the article, "The Dangers of Problems with GPLv3" hinders largely upon this notion of "spirit" and upon developers' trust with the FSF and future drafts of the GPL. I belive that RMS has been more than clear about his beliefs. Furthermore, the FSF has worked hard to share as much of their philosophy as they could with the world. As a person who has spent a good deal of time with the written philosophy of the FSF, I believe that the GPL V3 is very much in the spirit of the GPL V2 and is clearly in-line with the spirit of the GNU Project and Free Software Foundation.
However, it is important that when entrusting an organization with your copyright, you should take a good look at the organization and read their beliefs and arguments and to look beyond just the clauses within the license. "The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3" fails completely to do this kind of research or background check, and as such, I believe that they have failed to make a solid argument as to why the GPL V3 is not in the spirit of the GPL v2. I will leave it to the rest of the slashdot community to closely examine the language of this article and reveal that there is a lot of huff and puff and hot air but not a lot of substance or strength to the arguments.
-Joshua Gay
Re:Point by point summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Notable names *not* on the list (Score:5, Insightful)
That all depends on what you mean by "Linux." If you are talking about the kernel then no, you CAN NOT unilaterally put it under a different license. Not under the BSD license, not under the GPL 3 license and not under any a proprietary license.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Notable names *not* on the list (Score:5, Insightful)
Their reasoning is weak (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They are against the DRM clause because they believe it is an "end use restriction". The DRM clause prevents distributors from calling the program a 'technological "protection" measure' which ensures that others are free to distribute it. Perhaps it's redundant, but it adds no restrictions on end-use.
2. They are against the "Additional Restrictions Clause". This is one of the most sorely needed updates to the license. It helps make it compatible with other free software licenses. They're afraid that this will encourage too many alternative licensing usages. Unfortunately, reality is that there are already too many licenses out there now and this clause is trying to be as useful as possible in the current environment. If everyone agreed with and used GPL2 this clause would be unnecessary.
3. They are against the patent clause because they are afraid it will scare away corporate help. Here they may be right. However, the GPL is intended to be for "free software", not for general "open source software". This clause is certainly in the spirit of the GPL although it might make it harder for some projects to get help. Support for this clause will vary depending on how one falls on the practicality/idealism spectrum.
In summary, their reasons seem based primarily on a desire to see their work disseminated as widely as possible and not to keep the software free. I'm disappointed in them.
Good for you (Score:2, Insightful)
That is YOUR morality. How dare you impose your morality on someone else? And fine, so you won't work on DRM. There is no reason why someone else can't use GPL'd software to do DRM. If they are using their own time and their own talents and the coder of the upstream software is OK with it - what is the problem? The GPL is only meant to cover redistribution of software (it is a licensing agreement not a terms-of-use).
My problem is all you people who want to impose your morality on others in a flurry of holier-than-thou richeousness. Once you take a freedom away, which freedom goes next? Taking away the ability to experiment with DRM is a freedom, I don't care if you agree with it or not. "preserving freedom" by removing freedom is hypocritical of the FSF. What freedom goes next?
Re:Point by point summary (Score:3, Insightful)
The kernel developers like companies contributing to linux and they don't want to jeopardize that. That's pretty much what their response is all about, whether they even realize it or not.
Also you mention Red Hat... from the RH people I've talked to personally they seem pretty gung-ho about GPLv3. Probably because it protects them far more than v2 since it basically means they are immune from the majority of patent suits.
Pissing match (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally think that the kernel devs, particularly the major ones, are losing touch with their own customer base. Every single point of the open letter I dispute:
1) The anti-DRM clause is a *good* thing, as it prevents the industry giants from turning the free Linux-that-can-be-tweaked-by-the-end-user into Unix-that-can-only-be-modified-by-the-vendor. Do they even remember the craptastic state of Unix circa 1991? The FSF made a major tactical blunder in pushing HURD, yes, but they made a major strategic success in GPLv2. All these arguments against the anti-DRM clause are more deja vu of the arguments made against the GPL explicit-linking restrictions. Anti-DRM just closes a hole that someone figured out after GPLv2 was out a few years.
2) The patent clause: yay. If company X releases their own GPL version of code, they can't sue company Y for improving on it. Who could possibly complain about that? Oh wait, they're still pissed about the whole GNU/Linux thing...
3) The optional clauses: goodie also. Remember when Xfree86 had to fork? Notice how Sun CDDL is deliberately incompatible with GPLv2? GPLv3 just makes it easier to add those additional restrictions without breaking the whole license in the process. Distros won't care -- it's still GPL code. Developers WILL care, as they have to be more careful with copy-and-pasting directly from other projects into their own, but then again any developer who doesn't carefully check already is being stupid.
They threaten "balkanization" of the OSS landscape: I say it's already happened. It's happened in two areas: BSD vs GPL, and paid-for-OSS vs hobby-OSS. BSD: great license, and when I'm actually paid to write OSS code that's what it goes under so we can sell it later. But when I write MY code, it's GPL: you want it, pay me for it! Very different philosophies though, and impossible for Linux code to end up in OpenBSD unless the individual developer has a change of heart. Now who is all about sharing again?
Second: now how many OSS developers get paid to write GPL code again? Right: mainly just these people bitching about GPLv3. Notice how the survey even included an option to say "I don't like GPLv3 because MY EMPLOYER doesn't like it."
Since I'm obviously biased, let me begin the list of problems from the Linux kernel side of things:
1. They switched over to BitKeeper and got screwed, exactly like RMS said would happen. Then they had to scramble to resume development with something else.
2. The 2.6 development model that means unstable crap is now constantly being pushed out for the distros to clean up. How many releases did it take for ACPI to finally work? And why does my Adaptec SCSI system sometimes head off to lala-land when it was rock-solid on 2.4?
3. 2.6 dropped a lot of hardware support, leaving some of us in the lurch. Thanks guys, we really appreciate that. But nice to know that you'll help Tivo lock their customers out of hardware THEY OWN, that THEY BOUGHT with THEIR OWN MONEY. Wish I could go back to 1991 and tell Linus "Hey, you're only supposed to run Windows 3.1 on that 386. Don't like it? Go buy a new computer!"
Whatever. GPLv3 will come out, people will bitch and moan, and then they'll start to notice that mega-corporation never really cared what they thought all along. Watch for patents and DRM to get all out of control just as RMS has said they will and all those GPLv2-only projects will be encumbered all over again. When every DVR and wireless router out there runs Linux but not a single one is hackable, then maybe the kernel crowd will finally get annoyed.
Re:Point by point summary (Score:4, Insightful)
"The existence of DRM abuse is no excuse for curtailing freedoms." (sec 5.1)
"As we stated in section 2 one of the serious issues in Open Source is too many licences." (sec 5.2)
With regard to the first quote, they seem to be saying that the DRM clause is restricting the freedom of companies who want to prevent buyers from owning their products. This suggests that have forgotten about whose freedom the GPL is aimed at protecting: the person who recieves the code from someone else, not the person who wrote it. By the definition of "freedom" they are using, the GPL as it stands restricts the "freedom" of companies who want to incorporate GPL'd code in their product without releasing their own source.
With regard to the second quote, this is a claim that I have only ever seen in the FUD-laced presentations of lawyers and patent agents. The number of open source licences is very, very small: there are fewer than a dozen common licenses, and the last time I counted only about fifty that are at all significant. Now compare that to the thousands or tens of thousands of closed-source licenses out there. There are amazingly few open source licenses. Indeed, if there really were hundreds of common licenses--instead of the GPLv2 plus a few other significant ones--then a new GPL version would be completely insignificant.
So their position is not even self-consistent: either there is a large number of licenses, and adding one more is a problem; or there is a small number of licenses, and adding one more is a big deal. Their second point takes the former position, their first point the latter. Neither makes for a plausible argument.
With regard to patents: if a new version of the GPL puts a spoke in the wheels of the software patent machine, more power to it.
Re:but... (Score:4, Insightful)
More choice is only better when the different things to choose from actually do something different. Choice between BSDL and GPL is good, because they try something quite different yet remain somewhat compatible, at least in one direction (GPL code can use BSDL code). Choice between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is however totally pointless, both try to do the exact same thing, just with some details smaller changes, however they are incompatible in both direction. If I no longer have the freedom to combine two free programs together, because they use very similar but incompatible licensese, a lot of freedom is simply wasted for no good reason.
Re:Good for you (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the half of it: the FSF created that license in the first place to serve their political and moral goals. From the very beginning, the GPL has been about imposing the morality of the developer on subsequent developers, and GPLv3 does not change that in any way.
For those who agree with the FSF and its goals, GPLv3 is great. For you and your parent poster, the BSD license is a better solution.
Re:DRM isn't always a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not Good for Anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is YOUR morality. How dare you impose your morality on someone else?
It's easy, really, I'm not going to use DRM infected stuff. I don't have to tell you about your licenses. I don't have to tell the FSF about GPL V3. I don't have to tell anyone how to do anything, and no one would listen anyway, but I won't be told what I'm going to run. If you don't fix DRM problems and all your work gets sucked up by greedy DRM publishers, you will soon be without users and none of them will be free. Do as you will, but don't blame me when your branch of code ends up, abused and stagnant. I promise, "experiments" into DRM will be avoided [slashdot.org].
"preserving freedom" by removing freedom is hypocritical of the FSF.
The freedom preserved has always been that of the user. To preserve that freedom, developers of GPL'd code gave up the "freedom" to be anti-social and prevent the user from being able to use, modify and share their changes. Tivo has shown how GPL'd code can keep users from doing those things. Change is required and I've yet to see anything positive from anyone but the FSF.
Re:Notable names *not* on the list (Score:5, Insightful)
I humbly disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a moot point. I think it's a given that all FSF copyrighted code will move to GPL v3 (or LGPL v3). That includes such core components of Linux distributions as gcc. So the further proliferation of licenses in Linux distributions is a given, regardless of what the Linux kernel developers do.
In other words, if manufacturers start selling PCs with Linux installed, complete source for their version of Linux, but no ability to actually modify, compile, and upgrade the kernel due to the hardware enforcing DRM authentication (and the necessary keys being kept secret), this is fine by the Linux developers. This leads to precisely the sort of problem that led RMS to create the GPL in the first place -- he wanted to fix a printer driver but couldn't because the code was proprietary. Is it any different if the code is available but you can't install your fixes anyway? The purpose of GPL v3 is to forbid certain egregious end use restrictions.
An odd statement, given that the GPL is and always has been political in nature. (I think RMS would agree with that statement.) People who don't care what happens to the source code, and what restrictions are placed on the end user, use the BSD license.
The relevant section of GPL v3 says:
In other words, you can't enfo
All talk, no walk (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK, Autoconf's version number hasn't changed in at least two years. I can also remember looking into it a few months back and discovering that at the time anyway, GNU Make only had two maintainers.
The FSF has completely lost focus, IMHO. Core elements of the toolchain are not being actively maintained, and several of the people who were maintaining them have been employed by Red Hat, causing a conflict of interest which cannot be conducive to Linux's long-term wellbeing...or at least that of the GNU project, for those of you who like to split hairs.
I've had FSF advocates reply to me before and talk about how the anti-DRM crusade is important...fine and good, but let me mention something which I think is even more important.
For all that Stallman has written and said, and continues to say, about software freedom, said freedom isn't going to matter much if the software itself ceases to exist. I'm also not talking about KDE or anything on the surface, either...I'm talking about the core knowledge behind how to assemble a Linux system, and the tools themselves which are used to do that. Yes, I know the Linux From Scratch project will immediately be pointed to, perhaps...but aside from them and perhaps Gentoo, who else is there?
Aside from Debian, Gentoo, and Slackware, the rest of the major distributions are corporate, and created by people with far more interest in imitating Windows as closely as possible than in technical integrity. You only need to visit their forums or look at the track record for security of some of them to know that. Red Hat began Linux's decomposition process, but the other companies are continuing it. It's happened quietly, but on a number of levels, I honestly believe that Linux's roots are seriously endangered, currently...and as any botanist will be able to tell you, if the roots are compromised, although it won't happen overnight, there's a very good chance that the entire tree will eventually die.
I'd ask anyone who reads this and who cares about Linux's future to go and build Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] at least once...as that information will only survive if it exists within a large enough group of people. I've heard about the concepts of installfests, which are great...but if it could be arranged, I think source installfests, or "compilefests" could be fantastic as well. I feel that on a technical level, rather than on a political one, there needs to be a return to some core principles:-
a) Compilation from source, so that we're actually *using* source code rather than just talking about it. Source code availability is Linux's fundamental strength...there are any number of people in the corporate world who'd love a scenario where Linux was purely binary only, a la Windows, because they know how much that would disempower Linux users if they could bring it about. For all the talk about the convenience of binary rpms and debs, use of these is actually "helping" Linux to death. Whining about binary drivers on the one hand and using apt on the other is simply rank hypocrisy, IMHO...and it also doesn't genuinely solve either problem.
b) Individuals with sufficient technical ability once more creating their own systems on a wide basis, and not merely relying on predigested, corporate distributions which are often severely crippled for the purposes of compiling source, use deeply unreliable and broken package management systems, and which do not adhere to standards. Decentralisation used to be another of Linux's major strengths...again, something else which we're losing. The ability to "roll your own," is still there, but if we don't keep using it, we *will* lose it...there are a lot of people out there who as I said are waiting for any opportunity they can get to take such an ability away from us.
c) A commitment as individuals to the adherence to such basic things a
Re:DRM isn't always a bad thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM!=encryption. DRM requires that "my" computer refuse to obey me. Encryption does not. DRM should not be "controlled" in the sense of made illegal, but neither should DRM schemes be protected by force of law.
Re:but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that technically while GPLv2 code can be incorperated into GPLv3 code, the reverse is not nescisarily true.
Under GPLv2, I can write a security library that touches the TPM chip on a PC, verifies that the programs you are running are what they are reporting to be and reports back with the results. The obvious first step is that my library has to verify that it is itself uncompromised if my library can't verify it's integrity, no programmer can rely on the results of my library's responces.
If my library uses other GPLv2 libraries in the compile, I can verify & lock to specific versions I trust, that's fine. However, GPLv3 requires that I accept and allow any changes to the supporting libraries to be incorperated into my code - thus negating my ability to fully trust my own code.
I am aware that people have issues with trusted computing, DRM, etc. However they each have thier place in the world. I don't agree with Tivo's decision to incorperate a lockout into thier system, but given the position they are in between providing the features customers want and being sued by the owners of the content that the people want, I can understand it. 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. The GPLv3 does not.
RMS' take on this is 'tough, don't use our stuff if you're going to work in those environments', Linus' and these developers is "use the code, give us your improvements back, and we'll take it from there." Personnally I am in the camp with Linus, the overall codebase is what is important. As long as companies are developing applications and giving us back the improved code, the GNU/Linux project get's better - everyone wins in the long run. The individual embeded items don't matter. So Tivo created a device that you can't upgrade yourself. [shrug] You wouldn't have been able to if they put in a ROM instead of FLASH memory anyway. However, I can take that code they returned to the community, redirect the driver interfaces for it & make a DVR out of my PC, or even my Lynksys router if I package the videostream from a PC with a tuner card. The device Tivo made is almost irrelivant in the grand scheme of things, it'll sell for what 2 years? maybe 3? 50 years from now, I can take thier code and make it work.
Think about it this way, who do you want scrutenizing Linux for security flaws? My answer is everyone. My reality is that it's usually done by 2 camps - malware writers (both for real use & theoretical exploration) and corperate employees who are paid to do it. I know I hate reviewing code looking for tiny errors that don't normally effect it's operation. I would rather run off to a dozen new projects than spend a month looking for why the function foo() screws up when you pass it numbers that factor into a prime > 2^64 but not less than that. Most people are the same way. With that in mind, if I want security improvements, I want guys from a security company working on my code not on their proprietary code. If in order to get them to do that for me, I have to allow them to use my code in a proprietary device that only runs versions of my code that they have verified as meeting their standards, that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make. I get code improvements I can use in this project and the next, they get to market their system as secure.
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. Because TIVO gave thier customers a means of updating their system without having to send it back to the factory, he feels it's a violation of the principles of the GPLv2. To me, that's where GPLv3 crosses the line from a software liscense into the realm of technical mandating.
Re:DRM isn't always a bad thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it ensures the point of DRM in a voting system. Crooked elections offices don't need encryption keys to rig an election, and having the keys gives an elections office (as opposed to a vendor) the final say over what software can be installed.
Re:Good for you (Score:3, Insightful)
uh...he dares because you are distributing a derivative work based off of his code.
There is no reason why someone else can't use GPL'd software to do DRM. If they are using their own time and their own talents and the coder of the upstream software is OK with it - what is the problem?
If the upstream coder is ok with it, he won't release his code under the GPLv3. Alternately, he will give you a separate license to use his code that explicitly allows you to do this.
The GPL is only meant to cover redistribution of software (it is a licensing agreement not a terms-of-use).
true. if you want to build a huge DRM'd application and not distribute it, you can do so without violating the GPLv3. If you want to distribute it, you cannot use his code in your project.
My problem is all you people who want to impose your morality on others in a flurry of holier-than-thou richeousness. Once you take a freedom away, which freedom goes next?
Uh...nobody has taken a freedom away from you to begin with.
Taking away the ability to experiment with DRM is a freedom, I don't care if you agree with it or not.
Nobody is taking away your ability to experiment with DRM. Feel free to build any drm systems you want at any time.
What they are doing is not granting you permission to use their code in your DRM system. Since you have NO natural rights to use their code in the first place, not extending to you the right to use their code cannot be "taking away" anything from you.
"preserving freedom" by removing freedom is hypocritical of the FSF. What freedom goes next?
They arent removing any freedom. They are extending the option to distribute their code to anybody in the world who also wishes to preserve the user's freedom.
If you don't want to do that, you can still build a DRM system, you're just gonna have to do it without their help.
Open Source campaign placing optimistic bets (Score:2, Insightful)
This group of kernel developers is clearly advocating the "Open Source" (as opposed to "Free Software") position. Recall that Open Source seeks power and reliability of software by access to source code, whereas Free Software seeks to defend freedoms involving the use, modification, and redistribution of software. Note that in this opinion piece they do not mention "free software" or freedom, apart from just spelling out FSF. This is not only due to the amoral stance of Open Source advocates, but also because freedom is incompatible with the imposition of DRM by HW manufacturers. Naturally, these firms can choose whatever software they want, regardless of this debate. Why cry over the Tivo's of the world?
Throughout the GPLv3 debate Torvalds has played up an "optimistic" viewpoint, as opposed to the "pessimistic" FSF one. Another optimistic bet is the OSDL attempt against software patents. I am trying really hard to see the basis of such optimism, but how can the impressions of the governments and corporations of today do anything but kill it? In particular, think of how much harm the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA have brought upon society through abominations such as the DMCA, the Mickey Mouse Protection Act [wikipedia.org], etc. You can bet that our rights are obstacles from their POV, and that naturally they oppose the GPLv3, which seeks to preserve some of our "inconvenient" rights. Indeed, the GPLv3 is but one step in a very real fight for our rights, a fight which must involve analyzing the worst-case behavior out there.
LGPL is not practical: can't be verified, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
You, the hard-working, altruistic FLOSS coder, produce SuperLibrary v1.0, and license it under LGPL.
Big Evil Corporation comes along, takes your LGPL, modifies and improves it, and makes SuperLibrary v2.0. They link it with TheirMoneyMakingSoftware, and sells their program. People buy it, they make a lot of money, take vacations in the South Pacific, etc.
You say to Big Evil Corporation, "Hey, let's see the source for your new improved SuperLibrary."
Big Evil Corporation just gives you the source for SuperLibrary v1.0 and says, "We never changed your library. We just added new functionality in our part of the program, the proprietary part, and you can't have it."
How are you going to prove them wrong? Is there a way to dissect a binary and see if the modules are intact?
With the GPL, you have everything. So, you can try compiling the complete source code and see if you get the same binary. If you don't, then there may be some hanky panky going around. But until you can get a complete binary and compare the two, you never know if there's some back door or hidden function in their binary that doesn't show up in the source code because they're not giving you the full source code.
Can someone tell me that I'm wrong? Is there in fact a way to look into the modules in a binary and do a binary comparison of just certain portions of the code? (And can Big Evil Corporation defeat this by linking in BOTH your SuperLibrary v1.0 AND their own SuperLibrary v2.0, so that you can see your own modules but you don't recognize that a different version of your modules is also contained in their supposedly proprietary version of their binary code?) Any insight here would be appreciated.
Re:LGPL is not practical: can't be verified, right (Score:4, Insightful)
Show the court that their propietary code linked with your lgpl'ed code doesn't work.
Re:LGPL is not practical: can't be verified, right (Score:5, Insightful)
If you assumme the company is going to lie and get away with it, then it does not matter if it is LGPL or GPL or if it is commercial software that they are supposed to buy a license for.
Re:Linus made the right move (Score:1, Insightful)