Linux creator Linus Torvalds posted an email titled, "An Ode to GPLv2" examining why he feels the GPLv2 is such a great license as an alternative way to look at the GPLv3 debate [story]. "This post is kind of another way to look at the whole GPLv3 issues," Linus explains, "not caring so much about why the GPLv3 is worse, but a much more positive 'Why the GPLv2 is _better_'." Following a lengthy preamble to explain his stance, Linus includes a comment originally posted to a Groklaw article titled GPL Upheld in Germany Against D-Link.
His Groklaw comment is in reply to a number of concerns including that the GPLv2 doesn't get specific, doesn't provide patent protection, and ignores DRM. "That's why the GPLv2 is so great," Linus replies, "exactly because it doesn't bother or talk about anything else than the very generic issue of 'tit-for-tat'." Linus explains that when he replaced his original license with the GPLv2 [story], he did it because he was looking for something that was fair. "And that's what the GPLv2 is. It's 'fair'. It asks everybody - regardless of circumstance - for the same thing. It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to be given back to the common good. You can use the end result any way you want (and if you want to use it for 'bad' things, be my guest), but we ask the same exact thing of everybody - give your modifications back."
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List [email blocked]
Subject: An Ode to GPLv2 (was Re: GPLv3 Position Statement)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
One of the reasons I didn't end up signing the GPLv3 position statement
that James posted (and others had signed up for), was that a few weeks ago
I had signed up for writing another kind of statement entirely: not so
much about why I dislike the GPLv3, but why I think the GPLv2 is so great.
(There were other reasons too, but never mind that.)
I didn't get my fat arse off the ground on that, partly exactly because
the developer poll of "which is better" which was related to that issue
distracted me, but mostly because I just seldom write that kind of text -
one thing the kernel work has conditioned me for is that I write _replies_
to email, I seldom start threads myself (I suspect most of my emails on
linux-kernel that aren't replies are just release announcements).
However, since there was a sub-thread on groklaw about the kernel
developers opinions on the GPLv3, and since I did try to explain it there
(as a reply to postings by PJ and others), and since some of those
explanations ended up being exactly the "why the GPLv2 is so insanely
great" that I never wrote otherwise, I thought I'd just repost that
explanation as an alternative view.
So this post is kind of another way to look at the whole GPLv3 issues: not
caring so much about why the GPLv3 is worse, but a much more positive "Why
the GPLv2 is _better_". I suspect some people may have an easier time
seeing and reading that argument, since it's not as contentious.
A lot of people seem to think that the GPLv2 is showing its age, but I
would argue otherwise. Yes, the GPLv2 is "old" for being a copyright
license, but it's not even that you don't want to mess with something that
works - it's that it very fundamentally is such a good license that
there's not a whole lot of room for fixing aside from pure wording issues.
So without further ado, here's my personal "reply" to the the GPLv3
position statement. It's obviously not meant to repudiate James' text in
any way, it's just an alternate view on the same questions..
I made other posts in the same thread on Groklaw thread, not as positive,
and not perhaps as worthy and quotable. This one may be a bit out of
context, but I do think it stands on its own, and you can see the full
thread in the "GPL Upheld in Germany Against D-Link" discussions on
Groklaw. The particular sub-thread was on what happens since we can't
easily change update the license, called "So What is the Future Then?"
(I'd like to point to the groklaw posts, but there doesn't seem to be any
way to point to a particular comment without getting "The URL from Hell",
so it's easier to just duplicate it here).
Linus
---
And thus spake PJ in response:
"GPLv2 is not compatible with the Apache license. It doesn't cover
Bitstream. It is ambiguous about web downloads. It allows Tivo to
forbid modification. It has no patent protection clause. It isn't
internationally useful everywhere, due to not matching the terms of
art used elsewhere. It has no DMCA workaround or solution. It is
silent about DRM."
Exactly!
That's why the GPLv2 is so great. Exactly because it doesn't bother or
talk about anything else than the very generic issue of "tit-for-tat".
You see it as a failure. I see it as a huge advantage. The GPLv2 covers
the only thing that really matters, and the only thing that everybody can
agree on ("tit-for-tat" is really something everybody understands, and
sees the same way - it's totally independent of any moral judgement and
any philosophical, cultural or economic background).
The thing is, exactly because the GPLv2 is not talking about the details,
but instead talks entirely about just a very simple issue, people can get
together around it. You don't have to believe in the FSF or the tooth
fairy to see the point of the GPLv2. It doesn't matter if you're black or
white, commercial or non-commercial, man or woman, an individual or a
corporation - you understand tit-or-tat.
And that's also why legal details don't matter. Changes in law won't
change the notion of "same for same". A change of language doesn't change
"Quid pro quo". We can still say "quid pro quo" two thousand years later,
in a language that has been dead for centuries, and the saying is still
known by any half-educated person in the world.
And that's exactly because the concept is so universal, and so
fundamental, and so basic.
And that is why the GPLv2 is a great license.
I can't stress that enough. Sure, other licenses can say the same thing,
but what the GPLv2 did was to be the first open-source license that made
that "tit-for-tat" a legal license that was widely deployed. That's
something that the FSF and rms should be proud of, rather than trying to
ruin by adding all these totally unnecessary things that are ephemeral,
and depend on some random worry of the day.
That's also why I ended up changing the kernel license to the GPLv2. The
original Linux source license said basically: "Give all source back, and
never charge any money". It took me a few months, but I realized that the
"never charge any money" part was just asinine. It wasn't the point.
The point was always "give back in kind".
Btw, on a personal note, I can even tell you where that "never charge any
money" requirement came from. It came from my own frustrations with Minix
as a poor student, where the cost of getting the system ($169 USD back
then) was just absolutely prohibitive. I really disliked having to spend
a huge amount of money (to me) for something that I just needed to make my
machine useful.
In other words, my original license very much had a "fear and loathing"
component to it. It was exactly that "never charge any money" part. But I
realized that in the end, it was never really about the money, and that
what I really looked for in a license was the "fairness" thing.
And that's what the GPLv2 is. It's "fair". It asks everybody -
regardless of circumstance - for the same thing. It asks for the effort
that was put into improving the software to be given back to the common
good. You can use the end result any way you want (and if you want to use
it for "bad" things, be my guest), but we ask the same exact thing of
everybody - give your modifications back.
That's true grace. Realizing that the petty concerns don't matter,
whether they are money or DRM, or patents, or anything else.
And that's why I chose the GPLv2. I did it back when the $169 I paid for
Minix still stung me, because I just decided that that wasn't what it was
all about.
And I look at the additions to the GPLv3, and I still say: "That's not
what it's all about".
My original license was petty and into details. I don't need to go back
to those days. I found a better license. And it's the GPLv2.
Linus
GPLv3
What I find the most annoying with the GPLv3 Tito-tisation clause is that in addition to annoying lots of people, it would probably be quite ineffective anyway. Because a digital signature is not covered by copyright (and thus not a derivative work of the software), nothing prevents a company from signing code that it does not redistribute. In the case of Tivo (even if Linux ended up being GPLv3), it means they could just "out-source" the software to a separate company that doesn't have the signing keys.
The problem with GPLv3 is tha
The problem with GPLv3 is that it is an attempt against Corporations and the way how the financial world currently works.
I totally agree about many thoughts behind it, but this is to be achieved through direct and true, transparent democracy, not with a license about software usage.
If the FSF is so happy with it, they can demonstrate it by releasing their GPLv3 AND showcasing its use on GNU Hurd.
And, before this gets confused, the GPL Versions can coexist.
Personally I'd favour GPLv2 though.
I don't think the GPLv3 is *t
I don't think the GPLv3 is *that* bad, although there's a few points I dislike. The main thing that really gets me worried is that the FSF will make all the GNU projects "v3 or later" while a lot of software (e.g. Linux kernel) will remain "v2 only", effectively breaking up GPL software in two license-incompatible pools. I'm personally planning on keeping my (L)GPL stuff "v2 or later" in order to limit the damage. In the end, the GPLv3 *may* end up being good (who knows), but I doubt the good things will outweigh the problems it will create (forks, incompatibilities and flamewars).
GPL has always been about flame wars and alpha geeks
No matter if v2 or later.
A question for Linus
Linus, if you're reading this, I applaud your attempt to put a positive spin on the whole discussion. I agree GPLv2 is a simple license that states a simple and universally understood principle. However, it is also a copyright license meant to serve as a shield for the "quid pro quo" system that it created. What happens, then, when this shield becomes easily broken by things like DRM? The whole "quid pro quo" system it is supposed to protect falters.
So far I have seen only criticism against GPLv3 and now praise for GPLv2. Some criticism regarding wording and clarifications is valid, but I can't bring myself to believe that anti-DRM provisions in GPLv3 are a bad thing that should be removed because you have not yet offered a constructive alternative solution to the case known as "tivoization", a circumvention of your beloved GPLv2 by DRM.
So what is the alternative constructive solution to the problem of GPLv2 circumvention by DRM that you would propose? That is my main question and I am craving for some answers and I believe I am not the only one.
Thank you
Danijel
Re: A question for Linus
I'm not Torvalds but I'll try to reply anyway. I think you are interpreting the "quid pro quo" in a way different to what Linus Torvalds and others think. You think devices like the Tivo defeat the GPLv2 purpose. However, the only thing they prevent is running your modified code in that device they give you. The important thing, and what Torvalds and others try to remark, is that, despite of that, you get the source back.
Tivo people can take a GPL program and use it for their own purposes, but they give back the modified source. This means that all the new features and all the let's call it "scientifical knowledge", is back. You can still have the code, learn from it, implement new features to improve it, etc. The fact that you cannot run that code in a specific machine may be important for some people. They are in their right of thinking that way. However, I think Torvalds and others see this from a pure programmer/engineer point of view and think that is a minor detail, and that the enterprise behind Tivo is in their right of restricting what people can run on those machines, and that does not affect software freedom in any particular way.
I hope this clarifies anything.
It's not just the source
"You think devices like the Tivo defeat the GPLv2 purpose. However, the only thing they prevent is running your modified code in that device they give you."
But the purpose of GPLv2 includes running modified GPLed code in any device on which GPLed code is installed.
"The important thing, and what Torvalds and others try to remark, is that, despite of that, you get the source back."
The requirement of GPLv2 is not only to give back the source, but to provide the same rights that have been granted to you. So if TiVo people use GPLed code and hence have all four freedoms granted to them they should preserve all four freedoms to anyone else to which they distribute this software in any way, including installed on their device.
Since they do not allow that, and use DRM to enforce this (because they cannot use copyright law) they are still essentially violating the purpose of GPLv2.
Sure you can extract the software from the device, modify it and then run it on some other device, but to accept that this is what we need to do to fully excercise the right given to us by the GPL is too much. Not everyone can afford to have multiple devices. For example, someone may have bought a TiVo device and decided to make some nice customizations to the code that is running on it to gain whatever feature he wants to gain. GPL grants him this freedom, but *his* TiVo device which he payed for wont work with the modified code. So what should he do? Buy another TiVo? If he should just run it on his PC that defeats the whole purpose of having TiVo in the first place.
We shouldn't allow device makers to control what we can do with those devices once we buy them in any case, but especially when they use software produced in freedom and then deny part of this freedom for their device. It is in no way justifiable and it does break the quid pro quo cycle.
Re: It's not just the source
That is simply not true. This is not mentioned anywhere in the GPLv2. It's your interpretation of what would be a fair situation, according to your criteria. The creation of the GPLv3 is the living proof of this.
They are not violating the purpose of the GPLv2. The purpose depends on who uses it. People have goals, and use software licenses to achieve them. The FSF has goals. A particular GPLv2 program creator may consider a given corporation is getting around his intentions by doing something like the situation in place. Kernel developers don't think so.
I understand your point of view. In fact, many people understand it too. They understand it so well that they are creating and helping create the GPLv3, to address these same issues. But don't force that view on people who are just happy to get the source back and be able to use what they get in return, despite not being able to run their modified code on device X.
I may or may not agree in the first sentence. But, please, take into account the second sentence is only true depending on your concept of "quid pro quo". Some people are satisfied simply with getting the source code back. You have to accept that, because that's the situation.
" But the purpose of GPLv2
" But the purpose of GPLv2 includes running modified GPLed code in any device on which GPLed code is installed.
That is simply not true. This is not mentioned anywhere in the GPLv2. It's your interpretation of what would be a fair situation, according to your criteria. The creation of the GPLv3 is the living proof of this."
It is not just the GP poster's "interpretation of what would be a fair situation", it is the interpretation of the _author_ of the GPLv2, who believes that the Tivo scenario constitutes abuse of a loophole. Granted, the GPL is used by many outside of the FSF, and the "purpose" no doubt varies from one developer to another. Linus feels that GPLv2 is just fine, even though those who wrote GPLv2 now believe it has non-trivial flaws that need to be fixed.
primary purpose
OK, different people using GPLv2 have different purposes for using it. This doesn't change the fact that the *original* purpose by *original* designer which is Richard Stallman is not being violated against by the DRM and that he as the primary author of the license and FSF as the organization also created for pretty much defending the same purpose don't need to find a way to address the issues which threaten their purpose.
So in the end, what's the point? Is it simply that Linus loves GPLv2, "hates" GPLv3, is aware that GPLv2 no longer suits FSFs original purpose, but simply doesn't care about that because it is not the same as his purpose?
I suppose in that case everyone should mind their own business. But that's hard isn't it? It's hard when Linux kernel developers go out to call for termination of the GPLv3 process. The question remains on whose view is exactly being pushed over whom. It seems that this argument can go both ways.
I can't help but think, though, that if Linus's purpose differs so much from the purpose of the FSF which is essentially those four freedoms, that if having the source code back is really the only purpose Linus has, Linus doesn't care so much about freedom as we may have thought he does. That is of course, just an assumption based on this discussion of differing purposes that we have here. It is Linus, of course, who should have the final word on what exactly is his purpose for using GPL and how compatible or incompatible it is with the purpose of fully preserving four freedoms.
Thank you
My view
RMS was pissed because he couldn't print on some printers because of lack of source code to printer drivers (among other things). DRM just makes the spirit of his GPL void, because what the GPL v2 provides is not the kind of "quid pro quo" he was looking for from the beggining.
- Do we want the source or do we want to use the software?
Linus is happy with having open software, others want open software that can run on hardware: suppose certain DRMd hardware becomes very sucessfull (even free, and locking your content options). Then ANY software modifications for this platform will be useless to developers and end users, as nobody besides the "solution" manufacturer will be able to provide users/developers with the working "solution" (hardware + software). The only option for the user or developer will be: use it as intentended, or don't use it at all. This looks similar to what RMS found in his frustration with the printer: use it with the OS we are supportin, or drop in the trash can (and thanks for the money)!
1) Linus is happy with having just software back, even if it does not work, even if it cannot be tested in any way, and even if he's not allowed to use it
2) RMS is happy with having software that actually does something in real life and can be legally used
I'd say RMS is looking at the next 10 years, while Linus, being very practical as he always is, is looking at the short term only, as in the bitkeeper example (he's aware of his short term, and believes he'll be able to sort out future problems easily...in the future).
But FSF is right in that people buy solutions, and that companies will increasingly leverage DRM to lock-in users into specific solutions that no developer nor user can take advantage, use or experiment with without paying a monopoly price (whatever the manufacturer of the solution asks). Some other companies (or users, or government...etc) will exploit the patents route, so that the software is available, but nobody can use it before showing the money (or whatever the arbitrary restrictions are).
So Linus is not realising that he's, in a way, creating new future Linuses: software will be free adn accesible, but specific hardware that does interesting things will not, and open software that is very affordable (free) will not be usable until you shell out $$$ for X patents. So in fact, Linux may soon become the Minix of the XXI century :-) (In the sense that software will be free, but having the right to use it [patents] or having real hardware to use it [DRM], will not be free).
And yes, Linux is right short term, and RMS is right long term (although the FSF's GPL v3 may be a mad license, because it tries to explain what "quid pro quo" actually is in terms of specific, changing, inmature laws insted of going the clear way, the spirit of the license).
The bottom line is the discussion is what's "quid pro quo", and Linus is arguing having unusable software is "quid pro quo", because he has forgotten that open hardware exists because there are lots of manufacturers that just sell hardware. But the future lies in solutions...or "embeeded software".
" But the purpose of GPLv2 in
" But the purpose of GPLv2 includes running modified GPLed code in any device on which GPLed code is installed."
It's written in LGPL. There is a clause that say that you can replace the LGPL part of a programme by your own version. It's used to be sure that a lgpl library stay as a whole and there is no needed part under an other licence.
That is more or less true, bu
That is more or less true, but the license terms never imply that you should be able to use the resulting binary in the same device. You are talking about section 6 of the LGPL. And, of course, that's the LGPL and not the GPL as you said, so it would have anything to do with this situation.
the GPL is (from what i under
the GPL is (from what i understand) designed to protect what RMS calls the 4 basic freedoms:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
a DRM-ed/encrypted/signed kernel breaks with atleast freedoms 1, 2 and 3 from what i can see. the problem is that the text of the GPLv3 is to generic as to what happens to the private key, or atleast it was in a earlier variant.
same deal with patented code in a GPL program, as it breaks freedom 1 in that you can see but cant use. because if you use you may well be sued into the ground.
sadly, if you make the text more detailed, lawyers may well find loopholes.
it doesnt help that the prosess seems to have a bad case of RMS bluntness...
If there is law that allows a
If there is law that allows a distributor to circumvent a license by using special hardware, why do people find it strange if a producer of software tries to circumvent that special hardware by using law for software ?
"Give all source back"
"Give all source back" but what if you can't use a code because it's cover by a patent (like the probleme with a linux RT flavor).
"Give all source back" but if you're service is remote like for google one, GPL v2 say nothing about it.
"Give all source back" but if the internet provider say that there box (modem) containing linux are there own property, the GPLv2 give nothing to have the code for the user.
I though that GPL are a balance of right between user and developper not only between developpers. I think that GPLv2 have some hole that must be filled.
DRM protection are an other topic.
"Give all source back" but wh
You have to pay the patent fees.
It's an other question whether patenting algorithms or data structures is moral. The point is, if the company had to give up it's patent if it released code that implements it, it would rather not release code. So GPLv3 would work against free software.
And yet, Google is giving source back.
1) So compagny can't leave wi
1) So compagny can't leave without patent, so software patents must be possible with GPLV3, to permit compagnies to deliver a GPL software that you must pay to use it.
GPLv3 could give automatically a patent licence for each user for the program without more extent. (so not give up all the software patent portefolio or give a licence for doing everything with the patent) I don't see any problem there !
2) google did not publish the kernel used inside there mega cluster. they give back but not all the source code. But if they choose to not give anything back, GPLv2 could do nothing.
Sure?
>So GPLv3 would work against free software.
Not, GPLv3 code will not be against free software, it's be an indication that the code is safe to use. GPLv2 code will not be free for anyone, unless you hire 20 patent attorneys before using it.
>And yet, Google is giving source back.
And yet, that's because Google has some interest in giving back certain code. Nobody in the GPLv2 asks Google to share what they use inside Google systems (not that I don't agree, but your point is moot).
creative licencing is not the answer
the whole concept of patents and copyright, its to promote innovation or invention. without the protection of patents and copyright there is little or no incentive to create new things.
assume someone invents a new thing (mouse trap or whatever), way better than anything else before it. this person wants to take advantage of his new invention and get some reward for his smart thinking.
he may choose to try to market his new invention himself, or he may decide to "sell the patent right" to his invention to allow them to try to make it profitable.
its his choice,
Now YOU see his invention in every shop, its not complicated, would be easy to reverse engineer it, make it out of something differnt but works the same way.
YOU CANNOT, then start to sell "YOUR" new mouse trap as "something different" to this new invention.
Say, you supply the BLUE PRINTS to your mouse take and licence it under GPL.
YOU ARE STILL IN BREACH OF HIS PATENT, you are still taking away his income, and you are benifiting on someone eles invention by deception.
its clear Open Source and Free software people dont have much respect for IP or patents,
DRM is a DIRECT RESPONSE TO THIS,
DRM say, "you cant be trusted to uphold patents or copyright, so we'll force you to uphold them using hardware methods"
do you think there would be a need for DRM if all patents and copyright issues were hosestly admitted too, and appropriate fees paid.
Just like MS did when they purchased the patent right to the TCPIP stack of IBM/sco whoever.. years ago.
*****
assume your an Open Source advocate/programmer, on your way home from work one day, you come up with a killer App, or an algorithm that will change the world !!.
what do you do.?
Do you go home, get the code working, and publish it under GPL ?? for free. ?? i think not..