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?"
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.
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.)
what's wrong with v3? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it expected that licenses will evolve as technmology changes, and as loopholes are exploited? If v3 isn't adopted, what's to prevent everyone from locking down their software through keys?
Please clarify if I've misunderstood something, I greatly respect RMS and really can't see what he's doing wrong here. As I see it, without v3, the GPL will just end up just being a license where people can use the community's hard work and avoid giving something back in return.
Re:No, don't be *that guy* (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 many FOSS authors automatically use GPL because it is "teh license", basically due to the publicity. Much in the same way people use GNU/Linux because it is "teh OS". This means that whatever becomes of the next GPL version, will be automatically used in many projects. Consequently GPLv3, as it now reads, would result in lessening participation and contributions from commercial organizations and many skilled individuals alike. I do not see it as a good thing for FOSS. IMHO, the Berkeley folks got it right ages ago.
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.
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:sheesh! (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:No. (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, rather than constantly leaning on Stallman's. You might even find that you enjoy the experience.
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.
I've read the new draft many times thanks (Score:1, Insightful)
You're not denying what I said. You're merely explaining how it is that GPLv3/draft has become like that. What I wrote stands.
GPLv3 is becoming a EULA, no longer a pure copyright license. And if EULAs are of dubious legality in shrink-wrap and click-through licenses, then they are even less safe in a license which previously relied purely on the rocklike foundation of copyright law.
>> Here's the member list of that committee:
I don't doubt their intellect. I do however question your methodology in trying to answer my point by blatantly appealing to authority. You might like to Google for "Logical fallacies" + FAQ.
A good GPLv3 will stand on its merits, not on the number of high profile people backing it.
I do however accept your point that any perceived weaknesses should be posted to the committees for review, their eminence notwithstanding. Unfortunately, I do not believe that a fundamental rewrite is possible now even if major problems are identified and recognized, because RMS and EM (both of whom I admire and support personally) are on worldwide political campaigns now.
I'm not a kernel nor Linus zealot, nor a BSD fan, (and I have no time for proprietary software whatsoever), just a long-time Unix and FSF and GNU/Linux supporter since the start. I am however a logical analyst, and this GPLv3 draft is covered in logical (and hence legal) problems.
Re:what's wrong with v3? (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 irony.
Re:What? (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:No, don't be *that guy* (Score:3, Insightful)