ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

firewalker · 2008-07-22 13:10:37

Is ArchLinux going to adopt the GNU GPL version 3?

shining · 2008-07-22 14:22:14

What does that mean?

schivmeister · 2008-07-22 16:59:01

printhl "Distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL)"

Maybe he wants to see 3 somewhere there..

shining · 2008-07-22 17:52:31

Does anyone have any idea what it means to have a distribution under a certain license?
What does it cover?

I hope at least firewalker knows what it means and is not wrong, for asking to change it...

skottish · 2008-07-22 17:55:17

I don't know much about licensing, but would this require that everything Arch distributes be under GPL 3? If so, it's not going to happen any time in the near future.

shining · 2008-07-22 18:09:13

skottish wrote:

I don't know much about licensing, but would this require that everything Arch distributes be under GPL 3? If so, it's not going to happen any time in the near future.

Arch has no control over 99% of the software it distributes.
Well, Arch could only distribute GPL3 software but I am afraid you would not go far with that.

Anyway, I was thinking that this license might only concern all the PKGBUILDs, but I really have no idea.

firewalker · 2008-07-22 18:52:22

I am talking only for software created from ArchLinux developers. For example pacman (it current license is GNU GPL version 2). Maybe the distribution as an entity can change to GNU GPL version 3. It is clear that packets individually can not be changed from Arch. Only the developers for the specific software can change it.

GNU GPL version 3 protects free software against software patents, and some other other "holes" found on GPL version 2 that companies use against free software.

skottish · 2008-07-22 18:59:42

firewalker,

In your opinion what does Arch have that's at risk if the license isn't changed?

firewalker · 2008-07-22 19:12:29

skottish wrote:

firewalker,
In your opinion what does Arch have that's at risk if the license isn't changed?

A simple example:

A company that produces MCEs (Media Centers) uses a modified version of ArchLinux as the basic operating system for their boxes. They give the source code and the changes to the public as they have to. But they can make a hardware lock that doesn't allow the box to run a modified version of ArchLinux from user besides their binaries. Even if you have downloaded the source code from their page and build it your self.

Exactly the thing that is happening with tivo.

You may say that this is not going to happen... But I believe that the people running the Free Software Foundation knows what they are doing. If there wasn't any reason for GPL version 3...

I my opinion we owe it.

Last edited by firewalker (2008-07-22 19:16:42)

skottish · 2008-07-22 19:28:38

Thanks for the example. I was curious because of something one of FFmpeg's developers said. Read the top paragraph at least:

http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffm … 31968.html

I know that Mplayer and VLC are having similar concerns (par for the course, right?).

lok · 2008-07-22 19:32:16

The side effect to this, which the FSF don't talk about, is the popularity gain for linux. To be used in a commercial success do help to be known and not considerate as a student/researcher toy only. I doubt tivo would have picked linux if it was under GPL3.

ornitorrincos · 2008-07-22 20:30:39

firewalker, in the case of tivo they are not protecting the source code, but the hardware it runs on, you can always make your own tivo-clon (with a bit of ability)

phrakture · 2008-07-22 20:46:09

Additionally, and I mean this in all honesty - so what if someone clones Arch and locks it to their hardware? I always felt people should be free to do whatever the crap they wanted with Arch.

firewalker · 2008-07-22 20:49:58

I am waiting for the developers and leaderships opinion on this issue.

Edit
ooops... To late.

Last edited by firewalker (2008-07-22 20:56:15)

rson451 · 2008-07-22 20:53:16

phrakture wrote:

Additionally, and I mean this in all honesty - so what if someone clones Arch and locks it to their hardware? I always felt people should be free to do whatever the crap they wanted with Arch.

firewalker wrote:

I am waiting for the developers and leaderships opinion on this issue.

If I'm not mistaken, you just got it.

Last edited by rson451 (2008-07-22 20:53:40)

firewalker · 2008-07-22 21:06:02

phrakture wrote:

Additionally, and I mean this in all honesty - so what if someone clones Arch and locks it to their hardware? I always felt people should be free to do whatever the crap they wanted with Arch.

So why using GPL 2? Lets strip the license down. Can we? Is there any chance for Arch to be "forced" to use GPL 3 later on?

Have you thought adopting GPL version 3 and decided not to?

Last edited by firewalker (2008-07-22 21:06:36)

rafu · 2008-07-22 21:54:10

Stallman talks about GPLv3 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNknNScP0tg , and as always he is very clear in he's speach.

phrakture · 2008-07-22 22:15:20

firewalker wrote:

phrakture wrote:
Additionally, and I mean this in all honesty - so what if someone clones Arch and locks it to their hardware? I always felt people should be free to do whatever the crap they wanted with Arch.
So why using GPL 2? Lets strip the license down. Can we? Is there any chance for Arch to be "forced" to use GPL 3 later on?
Have you thought adopting GPL version 3 and decided not to?

Honestly, I haven't thought to much about it. My personal mores tell me that BSD licensing everything would be great. I like the freedom granted by licensing like that. But this is just _my_ personal opinion. I haven't thought too much about this in the context of Arch because, frankly, licensing is boring and silly. I'd rather actually work on the distro that worry about legalese and licenses and goofy things like that.

firewalker · 2008-07-22 22:29:26

Maybe you should take a look in that issue. Discuss it with the other developers. It could prevent potentials "problems" (if there are any).

shining · 2008-07-22 22:43:34

firewalker wrote:

I am talking only for software created from ArchLinux developers. For example pacman (it current license is GNU GPL version 2). Maybe the distribution as an entity can change to GNU GPL version 3. It is clear that packets individually can not be changed from Arch. Only the developers for the specific software can change it.
GNU GPL version 3 protects free software against software patents, and some other other "holes" found on GPL version 2 that companies use against free software.

So just for clarification, you are targeting all the projects hosted there : http://projects.archlinux.org/
correct?

I think that these projects could even all use a different license. They were written and are maintained by different people.
Anyway, all these seem different than the GPL license statement inside /etc/rc.sysinit

Asgaroth · 2008-07-22 22:59:41

phrakture wrote:

Honestly, I haven't thought too much about it. My personal mores tell me that BSD licensing everything would be great. I like the freedom granted by licensing like that. But this is just _my_ personal opinion. I haven't given this much consideration in the context of Arch because, frankly, licensing is boring and silly. I'd rather actually work on the distro that worry about legalese and licenses and goofy things like that

So you would be fine with it, if someone took Arch, added features to it and made the whole thing closed source and sold it? I certainly wouldn't. To me this would look like taking advantage of other people's work without giving anything back.
I think that the copyleft mechanism of the GPL is also a good thing for the progress of the distribution, because it ensures that useful work done on Arch would always benefit the distribution itself, therefore supporting overall progress.

But in the end it's the decision of the developers, so the paragraph above is pointless anyway.

Misfit138 · 2008-07-22 23:51:34

I like what I've read of the BSD license.
The BSD license seems more protective of the coder, while the GPL seems more focused on the code itself.

Allan · 2008-07-23 01:16:31

I struggle to think of anything extra that is protected in GPL3 vs GPL2 that would actually be of use to most of the code in Arch's projects. So I don't think we will be in any rush here...

Misfit138 wrote:

I like what I've read of the BSD license.
The BSD license seems more protective of the coder, while the GPL seems more focused on the code itself.

Good point. I tend to use the GPL for most things that I bother giving a license, mainly because in those cases I want to code to remain open. I should probably put the rest under the BSD license to protect me...

iphitus · 2008-07-23 08:50:54

So you would be fine with it, if someone took Arch, added features to it and made the whole thing closed source and sold it?

Tell me when you find a way to close source shell scripts

netcfg v2 is BSD

I'd take it as a compliment if someone attempted to fork, let alone close source it (given it's shell scripts...)

shining · 2008-07-23 09:27:53

Asgaroth wrote:

So you would be fine with it, if someone took Arch, added features to it and made the whole thing closed source and sold it? I certainly wouldn't. To me this would look like taking advantage of other people's work without giving anything back.

How the hell can they close the whole thing?
The main goal of a distribution is to distribute packages. If these were GPL, you still have the obligation to provide the sources.
And don't they also need to provide the build scripts used to make the package? In this case, that should include the PKGBUILDs too, and maybe even makepkg. Then we are back to the problem of how to close shell scripts.

But anyway, please be more specific when saying something like that, you always make it look like Arch is owning every single software and has the power to change their license.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-07-22 13:10:37

ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#2 2008-07-22 14:22:14

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#3 2008-07-22 16:59:01

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#4 2008-07-22 17:52:31

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#5 2008-07-22 17:55:17

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#6 2008-07-22 18:09:13

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#7 2008-07-22 18:52:22

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#8 2008-07-22 18:59:42

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#9 2008-07-22 19:12:29

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#10 2008-07-22 19:28:38

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#11 2008-07-22 19:32:16

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#12 2008-07-22 20:30:39

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#13 2008-07-22 20:46:09

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#14 2008-07-22 20:49:58

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#15 2008-07-22 20:53:16

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#16 2008-07-22 21:06:02

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#17 2008-07-22 21:54:10

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#18 2008-07-22 22:15:20

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#19 2008-07-22 22:29:26

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#20 2008-07-22 22:43:34

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#21 2008-07-22 22:59:41

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#22 2008-07-22 23:51:34

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#23 2008-07-23 01:16:31

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#24 2008-07-23 08:50:54

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

#25 2008-07-23 09:27:53

Re: ArchLinux and GNU GPL version 3.

Board footer