Linux vs. GPL3

Romashka · 2006-09-30 22:40:39

First, there was a plan... To create a better license... Its name was G. P. L. v. 3...

Then... Bad things happened...
1 - http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/
2 - http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification
3 - http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl? … 3&from=rss

What do you think about all this GPL3-related stuff?

Gullible Jones · 2006-09-30 23:26:02

Surprisingly, I can't bring myself to care a great deal, as long as Linux remains beyond the claws of slobbering lawyers. Could be because I have some difficulty wrapping my head around the jargon...

B1GfOot · 2006-10-01 09:24:49

I think its rediculous. If the FSF are jepoardising the existence of open source software then why continue to operate.

If it ain't broke, dont fix it.

deficite · 2006-10-01 16:37:36

All I know is that the first time I read about GPLv3 I thought I was reading a joke site. I laughed even harder when I discovered that it wasn't a joke site.

nugnuts · 2006-11-22 18:29:52

I don't think I really understand the kernel developers' perspective(s). From what I've read, the biggest hullabaloo concerning GPLv3 arises from the DRM issue. I believe it can be relatively fairly summarized as follows (and please correct me if I'm wrong): the FSF is basically saying "DRM is evil, you can't/shouldn't be able to use GPL code for DRM purposes" and the Linux crew are saying "disallowing DRM, regardless of potential evil, is a restriction of freedom, and we don't think it's right to do that".

So, I can understand seeing the prohibition of DRM as a restriction of a freedom. Essentially, it is a restriction of the freedom to ... well, restrict. At least, that is what it seems the FSF is trying to restrict. I believe the Linux people generally refer to this freedom more in terms of end use, i.e., they don't believe it is righteous to restrict what an end user does with their code. You want to take Linux and "Tivoize" it, well, you should be free to do that.

But that's where I lose track. The GPL, in seeking to protect freedom, necessarily restricts other freedoms. That's the point of copy-left. It is forcing people to keep the code "free". With the GPL as it exists today, you restrict the freedom to release closed-source/proprietary versions of GPL code. Microsoft can't take Linux, make some changes, release it as their next Windows kernel, and not provide the source because the GPL denies them this freedom.

I don't see why this is fundamentally different from Tivoization. Why bother with the GPL in the first place? Why does Linus have a problem with software being closed, but not hardware (the "environment" it runs in)? Linus could have shared the Linux code with the world without using a license that mandates it be kept free and open. I don't understand why the desire for freedom stops with the software.

Note that I'm not arguing for or against freedom here. I'm just saying that I don't understand what I see as an inconsistency. In other words, regardless of whether (forced/protected) freedom is good or bad, I don't understand why it is desirable to some people that software be free, but the "enviroment" it runs in need not be.

cactus · 2006-11-22 18:45:36

gpl 3 also covers other things.. such as..
if you grant group X an unrestricted license, then you must also grant groups A-Z the same license..or you are not gpl compliant.

this would have directly effected the MS and Novell deal. Novell would be unable to use the MS 'no sue' clause to say that only non-commercial developers are not going to be sued. If novell claims that non-commercial is safe..under gpl3, they would have to say commercial use is safe too, or they would be violating the gpl (v3).

filoktetes · 2006-11-22 19:47:31

Yes, the GPL v3 is created because of concerns that GLP v2 doesn't cover. The patent protections is one example which I think is important. The most controversial change, though, the DRM clause, adds a new concept to the GPL, controlling the hardware that software runs on.

I don't think letting someone put GPL'd software on hardware which the user can't change or update as they wish makes the software less Free, as long as the source of the software is provided. Then any other hardware producer can use that software in their own hardware and choose if they want to close their hardware too, or not.

The question here is, should Free software be used to fight closed hardware? Closed hardware specifications surely is a big problem for Free software, since it doesn't have the opportunity to sign non disclosure deals, since they have to reveal how things work in the source code. But this problem is not exactly what the DRM clause addresses. DRM needs closed hardware, but closed hardware doesn't necessarily give you DRM.

Personally I hope this is a sign that FSF is changing their focus a bit, and also see their responsibility for working against closed hardware.

Even so, I think it's too big a step to suppose that everyone who writes Free software also want to fight closed hardware. I welcome the proposition to include the DRM clause as an optional addition to the GPL v3. But then I could have wished for even more specific ways of fighting closed hardware as well.

xterminus · 2006-11-22 19:55:45

nugnuts wrote:

But that's where I lose track. The GPL, in seeking to protect freedom, necessarily restricts other freedoms. That's the point of copy-left. It is forcing people to keep the code "free". With the GPL as it exists today, you restrict the freedom to release closed-source/proprietary versions of GPL code. Microsoft can't take Linux, make some changes, release it as their next Windows kernel, and not provide the source because the GPL denies them this freedom.

Think of it this way.

The GPL (in general), strives first and foremost to protect the "four freedoms" guaranteed to end-users. You can see this over and over with statement in the gplv3 draft text like "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures." and "Automatic Licensing of Downstream Users." The emphasis is all about protecting the freedoms of the user who recieves the program.

In contrast, the BSD license strives first and foremost to protect the freedom of developers. It allows a developer to make decisions "bad for end users", like make deals with proprietary companies, embed DRM in product, whatever the developer wants. The BSD license is not "bad" because of this, but it explains why so many developers are attracted to BSD style licensing arrangements. It guarantees a different set of "freedoms". It allows developers to do what they want with other peoples source code without any consideration of what would be best for their own users. It "gets out of the way", and does not make any "political" decisions for the developer. This is in contrast to the GPL which insists on protections for end-users and attempts to protect them (and the code) from being used in these ways.

So I think it makes perfect sense why Linus and the rest of the Kernel Developers are so anti-GPLv3. It further restricts their rights as developers to do "whatever the heck they want" in order to secure the four "essential" freedoms of free software for end users. Anybody who is having power (the abilility to make choices that affect others more than yourself), taken away from them is going to complain and pitch a fit, which is exactly what Linus and Co have been doing.

The ironic thing is that the Linux kernel will never be able to be licensed under anything but under the terms of the GPLv2. If/When Sun relicenses OpenSolaris under the GPL (may or may not happen, lotta rumors), we may end up with a GPLv3 licensed OS kernel which is more suited to those who put idealism first.

So is the GPLv3 a good thing? Depends on who you are.
End user? ..... It's great!
Developer? ... Maybe not.

cactus · 2006-11-22 20:01:48

xterminus..i think there is a further distinction..
you talk of 'developer', and your verbage makes me thing of 'proprietary developer'. For such a developer, bsd is certainly more of a win.

for a 'free software' developer, I don't see any hindrance for using the gpl license. It largely comes down to the viewpoint of the 'developer' in question. Not every developer thinks DRM is a good thing.

nugnuts · 2006-11-22 21:33:01

xterminus wrote:

So I think it makes perfect sense why Linus and the rest of the Kernel Developers are so anti-GPLv3. It further restricts their rights as developers to do "whatever the heck they want" in order to secure the four "essential" freedoms of free software for end users. Anybody who is having power (the abilility to make choices that affect others more than yourself), taken away from them is going to complain and pitch a fit, which is exactly what Linus and Co have been doing.

I would agree that it makes sense that some one might be upset about a(n additional) restriction being imposed on them, but I'm not sure how applicable this is specifically to Linus et al. I get the impression they are not as concerned about what GPLv3 would mean for them as they are for what the GPLv3 would mean for parties interested in using Linux (Tivo, for instance).

I agree with how cactus put it.

cactus wrote:

for a 'free software' developer, I don't see any hindrance for using the gpl license.

And either way, it seems to me that the intent of v3's DRM clause is in line with GPLv2 and "free software" in general. The FSF's point is that they wanted software to be free and now, through DRM, people are finding ways to use hardware to restrict end user's freedoms with the software. The FSF seeks to specifically disallow such restrictions with v3 just as they did with v2.

Here's a quote from Linus via the Newsforge article linked in Romashka's original post.

L-dub via Newsforge wrote:

As it is, the GPLv3 limits a program that uses it very fundamentally more than Tivo _ever_ limited Linux. Tivo never limited the way Linux could be used by others. The GPLv3 tries to limit how a project can be used. The GPLv3 is the one that really limits your freedoms, not the other way around.

So, I agree that Tivo didn't limit Linux, per se. But they created hardware and a GPL-derived piece of software that effectively deny a user freedom 1 of the FSF's famed freedoms. The GPLv3 hopes to prevent this denial. That's it.

Alright, I'm taking to long to say it, so I'll try to just sum up. Linus complains about how fundamentally the GPLv3 would limit a project. I guess my point is it seems more like a logical extension of the limits already imposed by the GPLv2, and I don't see why it is so "fundamentally" different.

GPLv2 effectively says "Check it, this code needs to be free and modifiable by anyone, and must remain so." DRM uses hardware to put limits on said modifiablity, while still (arguably) technically complying to the licensing terms. Thus FSF adds in to the GPLv3 "... alright, so don't use hardware to circumvent the spirit of the license."

It seems to me that this is a reasonable addendum for a free software proponent, rather than a new fundamentally limiting restriction. I mean, I can understand Linus' point. What I don't think I understand is why or how he's choosing to draw the line where he draws it.

xterminus · 2006-11-23 12:43:07

cactus wrote:

xterminus..i think there is a further distinction..
you talk of 'developer', and your verbage makes me thing of 'proprietary developer'. For such a developer, bsd is certainly more of a win.

Maybe I should have been more specific. I use the term developer to indicate anyone who writes or modifies software (FLOSS or otherwise).

cactus wrote:

for a 'free software' developer, I don't see any hindrance for using the gpl license. It largely comes down to the viewpoint of the 'developer' in question. Not every developer thinks DRM is a good thing.

The GPL isn't a hinderance for developers who understand the tradeoffs involved when using it. But I think a certain subset of FLOSS developers got used to the requirements of the GPLv2, and they reacted when they saw more of "their" freedoms being curtailed.

nugnuts wrote:

I get the impression they are not as concerned about what GPLv3 would mean for them as they are for what the GPLv3 would mean for parties interested in using Linux (Tivo, for instance).

I really don't understand their thinking on this really. I'm assuming that if your using the GPL, it's because you agree with it's aims. "Tivoization" is an end-run around the intention of the GPL, so if you agree with the intent of the GPL, why oppose an amendment which closes a loophole which is violating the sprit of the license that you chose?

nugnuts wrote:

Alright, I'm taking to long to say it, so I'll try to just sum up. Linus complains about how fundamentally the GPLv3 would limit a project. I guess my point is it seems more like a logical extension of the limits already imposed by the GPLv2, and I don't see why it is so "fundamentally" different.

I agree completely.

magnum_opus · 2006-11-23 15:28:20

xterminus wrote:

I really don't understand their thinking on this really. I'm assuming that if your using the GPL, it's because you agree with it's aims. "Tivoization" is an end-run around the intention of the GPL, so if you agree with the intent of the GPL, why oppose an amendment which closes a loophole which is violating the sprit of the license that you chose?

well there in lies the problem, Linus at least doesn't give a shit about the aims of the gpl or the fsf, he's said so on numerous occasions, he chose the gpl because its well designed as far as getting and keeping a project out there, and "tivo-ization" or the "google hole" don't really have an effect on that and preventing it only discourages use of linux, and use of linux IS what he cares about

cactus · 2006-11-23 18:41:37

right. and linus has also said many times, that he is an engineer, and not a lawyer.

Sekre · 2006-12-07 10:21:55

hm...from what I've seen and read, I would think that me and fsf share thoughts on drm. I wouldn't say its a necessary evil or anything, but I can't say I agree that it would be a good thing. I just can't get it to work in my head if someone would restrict me like that. Would be like buying a car and only be allowed to drive on specific roads and only carry one passenger (yourself) , and that wouldn't really make much sense.

And since it's arguable whether restricting drm is figthing freedom or not I can understand why there is such a fuss over this type of restriction in gpl3.

Can't argue on the other parts of the gpl3 since I'm neither a developer or a lawyer, but I really hope this won't cause a 'split' in the free software community or the like. Not really seen anyone fighting here at least, arch's community is far more mature than other I have seen around this question. 8)

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-30 22:40:39

Linux vs. GPL3

#2 2006-09-30 23:26:02

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#3 2006-10-01 09:24:49

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#4 2006-10-01 16:37:36

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#5 2006-11-22 18:29:52

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#6 2006-11-22 18:45:36

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#7 2006-11-22 19:47:31

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#8 2006-11-22 19:55:45

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#9 2006-11-22 20:01:48

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#10 2006-11-22 21:33:01

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#11 2006-11-23 12:43:07

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#12 2006-11-23 15:28:20

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#13 2006-11-23 18:41:37

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

#14 2006-12-07 10:21:55

Re: Linux vs. GPL3

Board footer