Should Developers Switch to GPLv3? 174
Isaac IANAL asks: "Victor Loh of ExtremeTech writes about the General Public License version 3's clause, which requires releasing digital signature keys — in other words, the software should be able to retain interoperability when modified. The article raises an objection, citing Linus Torvalds, that the so-called TiVoisation clause would inhibit open-source adoption in embedded devices among entities such as governments, health care providers, and finance firms. The issue has been discussed on Slashdot many times before. If you're a developer for a platform that needs to run signed code, could you use software under the GPLv3, or does the GPLv3 (at its current, unreleased state) truly inhibit your control as a developer over your device?"
Not yet (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not yet -- "GPLv3" Should Become "SGPL"? (Score:5, Interesting)
This shouldn't be named "GPLv3" when done and finalized. If they do that, there will be a big clusterfuck of confusion and uncertainty, coming from "GPL" softwares with crucially differing GPL versions -- v2 vs. v3 -- and this will harm business adoption of open-source software. Not completely clueful managers and officers get confused, they lose face, so they go elsewhere. (That is, stay with closed-source.)
"GPLv3" should be named "Stricter GPL -- SGPL" (or something like that), and "GPLv2" should be kept just "GPL" -- the familiar and famous thing that nobody has a problem with.
And anybody responding that we FSF hippies don't give a damn what the corporate world wants or needs... I understand the sentiment ("we do tools for ourselves and that's all"), but it would be good to have FOSS spread further, and in the biz domain any such ambiquity or other "perception problem" can be a bigger problem than anything related to quality or technology. Make the GPLv3 into what you want, but make it clearly separate from the current well-established GPL.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I sit down and from scratch write a kernel I can release it under the GPL v2, v3, v8 and seventeen differrent closed licenses with no problems at all other than going mad from reading all of the legal junk that's required to define each one.
It would only impact on me if I decided to use someone else's work as the basis for mine, or as part of mine, and then I would either have to comply with their license or do the work myself. Doesn't seem that hard to me.
You've just described GPLv2 (Score:2)
GPLv2 was purely a copyright license (the FSF's "copyleft" is based in copyright, and only comes into effect when issues of copyright are engaged). Everyone knew that the license could never impact on your usage of any GPL'd software, onl
The licence doesn't say that (Score:3, Informative)
GPLv3 only puts restrictions on redistribution, not on use. (Just like v2.)
and look at the licence (Score:2)
This is borrowed from other free software licences. From the late 90s onward, many companies wrote their own free software licences, and many included patent retaliation clauses like this. GPLv3 is copying them.
That you haven't seen this before and that you have a hard time pigeonholing GPLv3 is a reflection of you, not the licence.
If you have a comment about the licence, please make it at gplv3.fsf.org (as well as discussing it in whate
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Clause 2 states that your permission to _use_ modified versions can be terminated along with your permission to _make_ modified versions.
This clearly does affect end users of modified versions - their usage rights can be terminated. If there is no "use" restriction, why does it not just terminate the right t
Re: (Score:2)
No, you misunderstand me. The only thing that makes the GPL enforceable is still copyright law. Being enforceable, it doesn't matter whether it goes outside of copyright law with regard to what it asks for in return; that doesn't make it less enforceable.
patent litigation is very specifically not development
Well, if there's an applicable patent, that patent will prevent the use, creation, modification
Re: (Score:2)
Want to bet? It depends on the audience. Frankly, most clients aren't even interested in the whys and wherefores; they just want a certain or at least highly probable answer, preferably that 'yes' or 'probably yes' they can do what they want to do. Usually they're not interested in more than that unless the answer was 'no' or 'probably no,' in which case they just want to know the easiest way to get to a better position.
Now, if I were talking to a lawyer, or a judge, o
ok, I was being lazy (Score:2)
The fact is that I can't say what an EULA is and what a copyright licence is. To me, GPLv3 draft 2 looks like a copyright licence. The termination in section 2 paragraph 2 seems ok to me, but I'm not competent to ok it.
One thing I feel mildly competent to say is that that sentence can fail without taking the whole licence down with it. At worst, it's a useless, unenforceable sentence.
So an appeal to authority is about all I can offer (with a link so you can judge their
Re: (Score:2)
They are not allowing you to distribute a modified version of the software that relies on patented methods unless you promise not to sue anyone for patent infringement on those methods. They are also not allowing you to use modified versions of the software that you've kept private if you have sued someone for patent infringement on anything that the modified version does (even if the unmodified version already did it).
Neither of these are "EULA". They are taking away permission to modify and distribute,
Re: (Score:2)
No, what happens is that if you sue, your permission to modify is rescinded. If you claim it was of no worth to be able to do that, then you can't claim it is damaging in any way to not be allowed to continue to use the modified version. If it is of no worth to modify and use it, then why did you do it?
A derived work IS the "property" of the person who modified it (along with the original creators, of course). Your argument makes no sense. The GPL requires that you provide sources to anyone who asks fo
Define use and distribution (Score:2)
And what about network services (such as webpages)?
If you take the game I wrote, I think it's ok to modify it to adapt to the gaming gadget you made. You don't want to release the code for that modification because you don't want to help the eventual competition, or that glue code would reveal details of your hardware. So far, so good.
But if you start modifying the game core, I want you to contribute back. Maybe the solution to this
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The philosophy is the same. The primary motivating goal behind the GPL has always been to enable the end user the freedom to modify the software that they receive, in whatever fashion, and be able to share the software they're using (modified or not) with others. Patents inhibit that freedom. The restrictions on someone who uses patents as a weapon against Free Software are ONLY to the acts of modifying and distributing it, which is completely within copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
This is ignjoring the principles of free software. Or at least how they have been explained to me over these past 10 or so years. If I code something, Say a Kernel that does percises calculations 20 times faster and more acuratly then currently availible, and release it under GPLv3 as it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you buy a PC, you buy a PC running Windows. Presumably you'd have no objection if all the PC manufacturers were required by Microsoft to implement code signing support so that unsigned Linux wouldn't run?
Re: (Score:2)
Its the difference between an appliance (TiVo) and a general purpose computer (the PC).
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's hypocritical, then.
If Tivo licenses hardware that imposes certain requirements on them, and then they license GPL3 software, which imposes oth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do if they enter into a contract that says that they do.
It is almost as if the GPL people want everyone in corperate software and companies to not tuse GPLed software or let the GPL people run thier companies.
Actually, that's always been a criticism of the GPL. Businesses would prefer something more like BSD, frankly. All you're arguing about is the degree to which the GP
No, don't be *that guy* (Score:4, Insightful)
GPLv3 is the worst of the series, IMO. Where it fails is in its insistence that if you want to be part of the community that you basically have to turn over every single thing to the whole community before you get the blessing to participate. Got a patent? Sorry, bud, check that at the door. Want to run specialized programs that require secrecy of code? Not on this platform, man. Want to mingle your closed code with our open widget? Give up all your source first.
It's not inviting at all except to anyone who has more to gain than lose from such a relationship. So what you get is a bunch of people who are actually leeches creating programs that no one else outside the community can even look at for fear of contamination.
If you want to share, then share. If you want to profit off of others and view everyone that looks at your code without contribution as suspicious, choose the new GPL. (The Artistic License for example, before it became GPL-compatible, was actually very cool and was able to gain a very large and loyal following for the Perl language. People contributed out of a sense of community, not out of coercion or because they were collecting a paycheck to do it.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The parent got the gist of it.
I have participated in projects which involved patents and resulted in sellable products - and every single line of code (protocol stacks, device drivers, bug fixes etc) that was not crucial to the heart of the customized product were released as open source. It didn't make any sense not to. We always used BSD codebases, though, somewhat wary as to what mess GPLv2 might get us into. With GPLv3, GPL'd code would not even enter the consideration.
One must also remember that ma
Re: (Score:2)
So continue to use GPLv2, if that's what you want. Note, however, that if you could combine your code with GPLv2 code, and not release parts of your codebase along with it, you can still do the same thing with GPLv3 as well. The basic idea of a derivative work versus "aggregation" hasn't changed. You can release parts of your program under GPLv3 and still release the rest with your macho patented code under any other license you want. If you can't do that under GPLv3, then you couldn't keep the source c
Re:No, don't be *that guy* (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, I don't see it that way at all. Yes, you have to turn over enough that the community can actually use the code you're giving back to them, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me. To give back modifications that are useless to the community because of patents or hardware DRM is to spit in the face of what the GPL is all about.
Re:No, don't be *that guy* (Score:5, Interesting)
Keeping these points in mind, let's look at your examples:
If you are really interested in building a community, choose a license that
So if I decide to stop contributing to your GPL3 project, I have to surrender my copyright to the code I've contributed? That's news to me.
[GPL3 forces you] to turn over every single thing to the whole community before you get the blessing to participate.
This is not true. First, no one is forcing you to use this license. You make it out to sound like the FSF will shun you unless you use only this specific license, which is not true. Second, GPL3 does not force you to give up everything. You still hold the copyright to code your wrote, so you can also release it under other licenses. If you release a trademarked program, you can specify how you wish for the mark to be used.
Got a patent? Sorry, bud, check that at the door.
See freedoms 2 and 3.
Want to run specialized programs that require secrecy of code? Not on this platform, man. Want to mingle your closed code with our open widget? Give up all your source first.
You do not state the technical manner in which the "secrecy" and "mingling" is happening. Depending on this, these could very well be prohibited by the GPL2, completely invalidating them as fodder for your diatribe.
So what you get is a bunch of people who are actually leeches
This is pretty hilarious. How does the new GPL allow people to "leech" anything? No one is being forced to use this license. I'm guessing you're talking about those evil guys who will no doubt incorporate BSD code into their GPL3 programs. Yeah, those guys are totally violating the spirit of that license. Oh wait.
no one else outside the community can even look at for fear of contamination.
This is no different from looking at code that implements a software patent, or signing an NDA to look at proprietary code.
If you want to profit off of others and view everyone that looks at your code without contribution as suspicious, choose the new GPL.
If by "profit" you mean "allow everyone the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute my code while preventing others from taking away these freedoms", then I agree with you. That's a pretty good profit derived from using this license.
Also, I fail to see how choosing the GPL3 would force me to view those who study my code as "suspicious".
In all, I fail to see how any of your points are really valid. You fail to actually define what you mean by key words in your argument. Of course, this allows you to shield yourself from having to debate any real issues, such as the meaning of "freedom", "rights", or "responsibilities". So perhaps this was intentional.
Re: (Score:2)
While the public domain program cannot be made unfree, the original portions of any derivatives of it are not at all free. If the software is popular, and people make a lot of derivatives, you're ultimately left with only the first program being free, and nothing that comes after it being.
The FSF, is looking at the net amount of freedom (i.e. how free you are with regard to all of the software descended from the original program), and finds that limited impairment of it can nevertheless
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. I think that this might be borne out by the large number of works that are derivatives of public domain works, but which are copyrighted. E.g. nearly any Disney cartoon you care to name. The BSD counterexample is interesting, but BSD has waned in popularity next to the GPL, and even if it is only perception that is the cause of this, that would seem to indicate that there might be a number of author
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying you're not really in a free society because there are laws against fraud, property damage, theft, assault, battery, rape, murder, and they even make you uphold your end of a bargain - how can you truly be free if you can't do all those things to other people? How can software be truly free if you can't turn it into unfree software? Oh, the horror!
Re: (Score:2)
I think that someone else's freedom to kidnap or murder me would make me less free than do restrictions on me to kidnap or murder someone else. I think most people think similarly, which is why we have such restrictions. As there's no such thing as "total freedom", all we can do is try to be more rather than less free.
Re: (Score:2)
>Got a patent? Sorry, bud, check that at the door.
>Want to run specialized programs that require secrecy of code? Not on this platform, man.
>Want to mingle your closed code with our open widget? Give up all your source first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
should they? (Score:2)
I myself have a question which is not entirely off topic, which somone might be able to answer. Can I release a document which I've written under the GPL if it is not software, say an article or something? I would want people to be able to use my work in a fair way, and after I'm de
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html [gnu.org]
Some people think it is antithetical to the purported aims of the GPL and the FSF.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See www.creativecommons.org for more info.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:should they? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can read it here [fsf.org].
Re: (Score:2)
what's wrong with v3? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it expected that licenses will evolve as technmology changes, and as loopholes are exploited
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In essence, people are confusing the algorithm (Free Software) with the implementation (the specific license or version thereof). The fact that the most visible people whining about it are programmers is truly some incredible
Re: (Score:2)
In essence, the implementation was appropriate not just to one algorithm but two, and the revised implementation is more suitable to one algorithm but is less suitable to the other. It's hardly surprising that programmers would claim that this make
complexity and length (Score:2)
For 15 years, people said "GPL is too long, write a 1-page version", but now that the licence is online for rewriting, and people are invited and asked to come to gplv3.fsf.org and suggest changes - where are the suggestions for what bits can be removed?
The length=bugs idea is a silly port of something that is kinda true in software but not really in legal documents. If it was true, Microsoft's EULA would be meaningless due to the number of bugs it must con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all true.
Hell, the only times I'd worry about trying to fit a contract onto a single page are if I either: 1) want to project the image that the negotiation will be simple and straightforward (even if it's not), or; 2) am hoping the other side won't read it carefully (since it can't be a big deal, fitting on just one page), and I'll gain an advantage for my client. A good example of the latter are A&R contracts. They could be
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, now I've been trying not to comment on this article, because I generally tend to avoid thinking about legal matters in general, but there are a number of things that I do have to ask.
Firstly, do you have to keep trumpeting that "EULA-like" argument in response to everything? It's starting to wear a little thin. Fair enough, it's a very interesting argument to make, and the first time I read it I did so with great curiosity. Even the second time, I listened to the argument, just in case there was anythi
Code needs to be used... (Score:2)
If a company like Tivo makes changes so the kernel can support a particular situation better they have to release the code back to the community. That's the purpose of the GPL.
While there are downsides to a company like Tivo preventing any 'foreign' software from running on the system the fact is it prevents them from having to deal with thousands of variations and means they choose how and what to support. The alternative is they use some
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't write a suitable clause, but I believe the issue with the GPL V3 draft is that it approaches the whole thing in the wrong way and so ends up overreaching. Instead I think that all the true concerns could be addressed by instead adding a clause to GPL V2 (I don't literally mean amend V2 I just mean the amount required to change for V3 would drop significantly) which prevents you from distributing the software with hardware unless the owner of the hardware can run any modified versions of the cod
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what I would do would be to ship the Tivo without the GPL-based software, and instead with a small, custom program that was severely locked down, and which would then go to Tivo's website upon set-up, and download the GPL-based software. This is because the magic word you used was 'with.' By distributing the hardware separately from the software, the former wasn't distributed with the latter. Problem solved for Tivo, but you, the user, are still SOL if you want to run your own
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv3 is not even done yet (Score:2)
Discussing the good and bad points of the current GPLv3 draft is valid and we should be doing that here. But to ask the question "should developers switch to it?" is immature and a little silly at this poi
Stop spreading confusion! (Score:5, Informative)
Spreading it is (either by ignorance or by malice) helping bad companies, like TiVo for instance.. Please read on the following to understand WHAT the GPL v3 draft says.
The draft version of the GPLv3 says that IF AND ONLY IF the software you want to run, needs some special digital signature, then and only then must the digital signatures acompany the source code.
So, what does all this blurb mean? Is Linus so obtuse he can't read english? No. So...?
I could understand it if he said that he felt he couldn't ignore the contributions of some hardware manufacturers, but what does he say? He says that GPLv3 "sucks" because it prevents legitimate businesses like those of TiVo. That if users don't like that hardware, they can use other hardware.
As usual, untrue pragmatism. The pragmatist doesn't idealize about perfect future conditions that may or may not happen. The true pragmatist solves the problem in a practical and definitive form: preventing the harm from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
By stipulating this, Stallman is implicitly calling for civil disob
Re:Stop spreading confusion! (Score:5, Informative)
No. You have misinterpreted.
Section 1201 of Title 17 (a.k.a. DMCA) defines circumvention as bypassing controls without authorization, and that authorization isn't something that comes from the law or the government -- it comes from the copyright holder. What the GPL is really doing here, is saying that the GPLed works' copyright holder grants authorization. If you withhold authorization (thereby triggering the malignancy of DMCA) then you have violated the license.
A lot of people seem to think that DMCA prohibits descrambling, but it really just prohibits descrambling without permission. If I hold the copyright on a CSS-protected movie and sell it to you, and I say "You may crack the CSS on this movie" then you legally may crack the CSS on that movie; you will not be violating Article 17 Section 1201. Now imagine if I had some little piece of a movie, such that lots of people wanted to make derived works of my movie fragment, and I licensed it under the condition "you, the licensee, may not forbid circumvention of CSS on your derived work." Then anyone who used my movie fragment, would have to allow CSS to be cracked on their movie. That's essentially what GPL3 is doing here.
It's not "locking horns" with the legal system; it's playing within the rules. And one of the rules is that the copyright holder may grant authorization to bypass.
Re: (Score:2)
I admit my own interpertation of the DMCA is probably flawed, and would hold the same to most of the interpratations of fellow slashdotters, however
If your form of DRM was unique, and the only software using that DRM was GPLv3, then perhaps the tools to break that DRM would also not be illegal to produce or distribute...
But using your example of CSS, while if YOU attempted to sue me for cr
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't sue you for having or trafficking in the cracking tools (since by using GPL3, I would have already granted everyone permission to use such tools) but, yeah, somebody else who uses CSS could. Whether they would win or not, remains to
Re: (Score:2)
I agree RMS is pushing very hard on the issue of DRM and the DMCA subverting the intent of the GPL but how does the GP
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's sad is that Linus sees what Tivo has done as "legitimate." Go back a few decades, Linus. When RMS couldn't maintain his laser printer driver, RMS could have just used other hardware. Obviously, RMS didn't like that idea. He didn't like it so much, that the GPL was invented practically as a response to that incident. GPL exists because "jus
Re: (Score:2)
Developers rights (Score:2)
If you are considering the GPL, choose if you want v2 or v3.
Personally I think the GPLv3 creates more problems than it solves.
read these first, they're a good base (Score:4, Informative)
For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences [fsfeurope.org]. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.
The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August [fsfeurope.org]. Here are the others:
Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page [fsfeurope.org].
Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Raise the quality of discussion? I'm curious...is your definition of a quality discussion in this context one which is supportive of RMS' position by default?
It's good to discuss what's actually in the text (Score:2)
Criticism and suggestions are useful.
The problem is that too often there are debates under the topic of "GPLv3" which are wholely unrelated to GPLv3. People debate ideas such as "Should GPLv3 prohibit DRM", when GPLv3 doesn't prohibit DRM at all, only tivoisation. Or people debate "What if I don't own the device? What about my work computer?
Re: (Score:2)
donations are not spent on flights (Score:2)
And, for this unusual project, "disemination" is not only important, it is the duty of FSF. Because of the "any later version" clause, when FSF release GPLv3 it will change the terms under which a lot of software can be
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I just want to add that between FSF [fsf.org], FSFE [fsfeurope.org], FSFI [fsf.org.in], and FSFLA [fsfla.org], organising events around the World is not so difficult. There is a local network of employees and/or volunteers in many cities (and these would be the places chosen to host events).
And, after getting many experts into one place so that a large discussion can be had, all events were recorded in some way. A good example is the European conference, for which the entire two days were recorded and put online [fsfeurope.org].
sheesh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes!
> or does the GPLv3 (at its current, unreleased state) truly inhibit your control as a developer over your device?"
No! Any more questions?
(Ok, if you want to get picky: it doesn't inhibit your control over "your" device, but it may inhibit your ability to inhibit others. You know--the people who actually OWN "your" device! But that's the whole point!)
This whole "requires releasing digital keys" nonsense has to go! Whoever invented that meme should be shot. And I don't care how many of you like his fucking kernel!
Everyone's talking like this is going to have huge effects. The fact is that there is really, so far, only one company that would have been affected, and they won't be affected because the Linux kernel devs long ago decided to stick with v2. And now the devs want to justify that decision by pointing out all the supposed flaws with v3. I'm not impressed with their reasoning.
People talk about voting machines. The solution there is easy. The software needs to provide a signature of the results AND the software together. Then you can easily detect tampering while still providing all the freedom necessary to fix problems.
Going with GPLv2-only is the WORST possible solution, as far as I can tell. That will guarantee license-incompatibility in the future. Frankly, I see nothing in the GPLv3 draft that would justify the kind of headaches that going to GPLv2-only would cause. In fact, I see nothing in the GPLv3 worth bitching about. Yes, it's new, yes, there's some controversy, but my god, I was there when the original GPL was released, and this controversy ain't nothin' compared to the shitstorm of controversy back then! Well, Stallman turned out to be basically right about the GPL in the first place, and, by comparison, I see nothing but tiny, incremental improvements this time around.
The GPLv3 will be happening, and I, and probably tens of thousands of others, will be using it. Get used to it!
By the end of the next decade, I predict that people choosing GPLv2-only licenses will be being cursed as roundly and solidly as those who chose non-dual-licensed MPL or Artistic are today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>be using it. Get used to it!
Yes...because as we all know, more than anything else the definition of freedom is having other people decide what happens without being able to do a thing about it ourselves.
Another wonderful example of one of RMS's fans demonstrating to us just how glorious Stallman's vision of freedom truly could be. Still think it looks appealing?
Re: (Score:2)
What a bizarre statement. You were obviously trying to be sarcastic, but your statement was perfectly true as it was. YES... the definition of freedom is having other people decide what they do without being able to do a thing about it yourself. If other people choose to wear their hats backwards, then he was right... get used to iy. I
Re: (Score:2)
People talk about voting machines. The solution there is easy. The software needs to provide a signature of the results AND the software together. Then you can easily detect tampering while still providing all the freedom necessary to fix problems.
Huh? If I tamper with software on a voting machine, the tampered software will of course provide a signature of the tampered results and the original software.
Are you suggesting that voting machines have a hardware mechanism for signing the state of the machi
Code signing: WHO has the key? (Score:3, Informative)
Governments, healthcare providers, and finance firms don't need to be able to make sure their software can be maintained? They want to be locked into a single source?
This is such a bullshit argument. Nothing about GPL3 prevents you from making your own machine tamper-proof. What they're really talking about, is distributing widgets to other people such that the other people cannot maintain or "tamper with" the widget. Governments, healthcare providers, and finance firms do not need that. Only media companies [think they] need that.
From submitter:
Before you finish that question, let's get something straight. When that platform is deployed, the end user will have the ability to install or choose what key(s) (perhaps even the end user's own key) the platform will accept, right? If so, then I really don't think you're going to have a problem with GPL3.
If the end user will not be able to sign code themselves, then fuck off. You sure as hell aren't talking about using DRM as a security feature, because users are the party who are ultimately responsible for their own security. Nobody cares if your project is GPL3 compatable or not, and nobody cares if your project uses Linux, because Linux is almost useless, like any other OS, if users cannot get maintenance whenever they want it. If your project can't get bugs fixed or features added (including features that you, the developer, think are bad ideas) then your project might as well run MS Windows. Maybe Torvalds doesn't care about users anymore, but Linux didn't get all the other developers working on it (including the ones who wrote those free drivers that you salivate over) by fucking the users over. Linux attracted people and became a successful project by not being user-hostile.
v2 will stay (Score:2)
GPLv3 is one more option added, it will not erradicate GPLv2 (duh), so why all the fuss?
Well, I can tell one reason: to help developers be aware of these questions, and decide carefuly which license to use. The best one will depend on each situation. I understand Linus' concerns, he's pobrably right picking v2.
Just make it easy for everyone: (Score:2)
There, was that so hard?
How I really feel (Score:2, Troll)
A lot of people have criticised Linus for the amount he has said about this...in my own mind, he hasn't gone nearly far enough. IMHO he needs to publically confront Stallman, and then move the ker
Re: (Score:2)
The FSF are not involved in Linux, they just know that a significant usage of the Gnu software is on Linux. For every argument that Linux rode on Gnu there is probably an equal counter argument, I would suggest the two are simply codependant (without Gnu Linux is unlikely to have ever left x86 and certainly wouldn't have done it so quickly, without Linux RMS's dream of fully free computers would probably be a long way back). Linux has helped the FSF, the FSF has helped Linux.
Now to more serious matters
Re:How I really feel (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, Linux is only a kernel. Did you somehow forget what else comes with a GNU/Linux distribution? The shells? The binary utilities? The network managers?
Last time I checked, Linux was best built with a GCC toolchain. That's right, a GNU C compiler is used to build Linux. Oh, and you should be using GNU make to configure it.
The FSF and its GNU project provide support utilities for virtually every Linux distro out there right now. Sadly, most of them, excepting Debian and its derivatives, have thrown away their acknoledgement of GNU and its importance in making Linux work. That is exactly how you talk -- as if GNU has done nothing for Linux.
What I hear from you is nothing more than fanboy's prattle. You honestly believe that Linux owes nothing to the FSF? NOTHING?
Without GNU, I would not have the following utilities:
Still feel that Linux doesn't need the GNU project or the FSF? Well, fine. Just don't call me an "uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist" anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
going through your list, there are plenty of alternatives to the GNU system, here's a few.
aspell -> ispell
bash -> ash
bison -> yacc
diff -> bsd diff
gparted -> partition magic
gpg -> pgp
grep -> bsd grep
grub -> lilo
gzip -> compress
less -> bsd
m4 -> bsd
make -
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be one more chapter in the saga. I've been hearing buzzing about how horrible the GPLv3 is, and then when I actually look closely at the details, it appears perfectly innocuous. If
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, and you well deserve it.
You were completely ignorant and foolish to say Linus should move Linux to a different license.... because Linus is LEGALLY INCAPABLE of modifying the license on Linux. Virtually all of the code in Linux is copyrighted by OTHER PEOPLE, and Linus would be violating thousands of people's copyrights if he attempted to release Linux under a different license.
If you don't like the GPL, or you don't like the GPLv3, then FINE.... do
Entirely missing the point of the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
"Your" device? Once you've sold it to a customer, it's ceased to be "your" device. If a customer buys a device that runs GPLed software, they have the freedom to replace that software as they see fit. That's entire purpose of the GPL: to grant end users freedom. Complaining that the GPLv3 inhibits a developer's control over their device is like complaining that GPLv2 inhibits a developer's control over their software. Congratulations on identifying the core purpose of the GPL.
Next week on Ask Slashdot: "Can you use the Bill of Rights in your dictatorship, or does the it truly inhibit your control as a dictator over your citizens?"
Re: (Score:2)
"The GPLv2 (and possibly GPLv3) may cause problems with doing this."
"May"? GPLv3 is designed to cause problems with this. That's my point. The FSF believes that once you buy a piece of software or a software-hardware combination you have the right to modify it. You're saying that the manufacturer wants to control the software that its customers run. That is exactly what the FSF is fighting against. You might disagree with thier beliefs, but that the GPLv3 will cause problems should be no surprise.
Question of authenticity (Score:2)
Would trying to release software under the GPL3 for the device controvine the GPL3?
The idea would be that voting machines, medical devices, and other items where the authenticity of the software is critical could indicate the authentcity of the software, while not
What do you care about? (Score:2)
In my opinion, whether to stay with GPLv2 or move to GPLv3 boils down to the same thing as the question of whether to stay with a BSD license or move to the GPL: what things do you care about?
The question is FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
It simply requires that you provide the user with the ability to use/create a functional key which provides identical functionality.
That way you can't end up with a situation where, say, Microsoft, uses their market clout to make hardware manufacturers release 'secure' boxes which only boot from Microsoft keys, and then they release a Linux kernel signed by Microsoft.... Now you have the source code to the Microsoft Linux kernel, but no 'comodity' box that will boot your recompiled kernel because they all require Microsoft's key.
Now, Microsoft (and Linus) can keep their private key private -- they just have to provide you with a key (any key) that will boot your box ... and They just can't punish you for using your own kernel (as long as it provides identical functionality).
FSF should stop trying to convince Linus (Score:2)
Another trick would be to put glibc under an LGPLv3 that has the same restriction on software signing systems.
Switch lobbying efforts to trying to get Samba to use GPLv3.
The endgame of the Trusted Computing fight is that within a few years an operating system that isn't TCG-signed will not be able t
The TiVo complainants are missing the point .... (Score:2)
The restrictiveness of the TiVo situation is caused by the closed hardware, not the GPL software. The software is doing its job under the GPL.
The intent of the GPL (even RMS would have to admin) was to ensure freedom to tinker
, not to patch an embedded system.
The "right to tinker" may be central to FSF philosophy, but it's the least important of the GPL rights to the general public. Strange as it may seem, 99.9% of the world doesn't write code. And further, that right is still a
Objective evidence that RMS is out of touch .... (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I'm an open source zealot myself, and I have huge respect for what RMS has done to put open software on the map, and having someone on the extreme acts as a foil for moderates, but the GPL is not a
Re:Objective evidence that RMS is out of touch ... (Score:2)
Ok. You referred to some unspecified legal problems regarding GPL before that paragraph, so I assume your business decisions were based on those fears... Could you explain how any other open source license is better?
Also, you describe GPLv3 as totally unsuitable for business use, but do not back the claim in any way. At least point out which clause you think rules out using GPL v
Re: (Score:2)
So another option would merely be to not sue those who distribute works that link against your own work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman explains this in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism [gnu.org].
The freedom you're talking about is total freedom - which leads to fuedalism, which is not very free at all in practice. Free software is specifically about the freedom to help yourself and to collaborate with others of your choosing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is total garbage, and can very easily be shown to be total garbage merely by pointing to those projects which *do* use MIT/BSD licenses and which work fine organisationally. Yes, forks happen, but forks happen with GPLed code too.
I've said this to a lot of the pro-FSF lemmings that I've seen on this site, and I'm going to say it to you too...Try using your own brain for a change, rat
GPL ensures forks are healable (Score:2)
As for your point, yes, forks happen. MIT/BSD allows for forks, and the forker can choose to make the fork unhealable (by many methods, one of which is not distributing the source). GPL also allows for forks, but it ensures that all forks can be healed - the fork and the original can be merged later because the licence can never become incompatible.
Here's an excellent essay on the topic: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/fork [linuxmafia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which only really goes to show that it's not only major corporations that are capable of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)