login
Search
The following editorial was contributed by Ciarán O'Riordan of FSFE. Working for FSFE since April 2005, Ciarán has been raising public awareness and participating in public discussion on GPLv3 since the launch in January 2006 and contributes heavily to FSFE's GPLv3 project.
Discussion draft 3 of GPLv3 is due in early November, approximately. Before that is finalised, I'd like to review the debate over DRM and the Linux kernel developers. Discussion draft 3 may be the final discussion draft, so I'd like to encourage discussion of this issue so that people can make comments now (via gplv3.fsf.org) which can be taken into account for draft 3.
GNU GPL version 2 is a great licence. It's an amazing licence when we remember that Richard Stallman wrote it pretty much on his own with some legal counsel. This year, the community's input is solicited and four teams comprising 130 people have been formed to research each issue raised by the community. With fifteen years of hindsight, and will brains from around the World, I think we can write an even better licence.
The decision for whether the Linux kernel will relicense to GPLv3 can really be made when the official GPLv3 is published in early 2007. Relicensing Linux will not be simple, due to it's hundreds or thousands of copyright holders, but it can be done if there is a will. (I previously wrote about how this works in "Can the Linux Kernel Relicense?") Right now is the time for debating what the licence can do, should do, and what options it should leave open. In this article, I'll focus on DRM.
What GPLv3 says about drm:
About DRM, draft 2 says you may distribute the software:
...provided you also distribute any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions...
(From Section 1, paragraph 4)
For the vast majority of distributors of GPL software, this requirement has zero impact because in normal circumstances, no keys are necessary to install and/or execute the distributed software. The rare special case that will be impacted by this clause is where software is being distributed as a software+device bundle and the Device is Rigged to Malfunction if it detects any software that hasn't been somehow authorised by the hardware distributor.
From following the debate over GPLv3 and DRM, I think the requirements are quite a bit smaller than one would imagine if they read only second-hand sources. There are some more DRM-related words in GPLv3 draft 2, but I think the above quote is the bulk of the substance.
Why is the drm stuff there?
For three reasons:
(A) Freedom. The philosophy of the Free Software movement is that computer users should be free to help themselves by modifying the software on their computer. If running a modified version requires a password, then the recipient of the software must be given the password so that they can make use of this freedom to help themself.
Since the start, this has been offered as the reason to support the DRM clause. In hindsight, that was probably a mistake. Freedom is the reason for the Free Software movement, but it is not the beginning and end of why combating DRM in our licences is a good idea - just as freedom isn't the only reason why people used GPL version 2. On to the other two...
(B) Developer community. This can be summarised as: More tinker-proof boxes = fewer tinkerers. Hacking the Tivo is pointless because the computer won't boot if the software is modified. In this way, Tivo computers are tinker-proof. The GPLv3 prohibits distributing the software in a system that uses DRM to prevent tinkering.
Tivo are not the only ones making tinker-proof boxes, but Tivo are the only ones I can see that are likely to walk away if Linux moves to GPLv3. This is because Tivo are the only distributors of tinker-proof boxes whose business model rests on controlling their users.
The other distributors of tinker-proof boxes fall into two categories. One is a subset of router manufacturers. I don't believe they have a deep interest in preventing tinkering. If they are have to allow tinkering in return for getting continued software updates, I don't think they will walk away. That way, we gain more co-developers. The second category is makers of devices which are regulated by government or standards bodies, and for these there are still the options of putting it in ROM or putting it behind a locked door. (See: Preventing modification: put it in ROM?)
(C) Catastrophe prevention. If the current trend of general purpose computers were replaced en masse by tinker-proof computers, this could be a catastrophe for Free Software. I've no idea how likely this scenario is, but it is obviously possible. There are at least three ways that it can happen:
Where do we go from here?
Reasons (A) and (C) are why the final version of GPLv3 will retain some clause to preserve the freedom to modify software and run it on the computer that the original software was intended to run on.
Many Linux kernel developers have rejected reason (A), but I haven't seen substantial discussion about reasons (B) or (C). There's plenty more time for discussing these points.
If the Linux kernel developers decide that none of those three reasons are agreeable, there is another option. Draft 2 of GPLv3 provides infrastructure for adding exceptions (called "additional permissions" in section 7a) to the licence.
The Linux kernel developers might add an exception saying that distributors don't have to pass on to recipients any required keys or passwords.
All such exceptions can be removed by others, but simply removing the exception only makes an irrelevent copy. If I offer to distribute a copy of their software with the exception removed, Tivo will simply ignore my version and use the version from the Linux kernel developers.
The only possible conflict that could still remain is that I can take Linux, remove the exception and additionally make my adjustments, and distribute my modified version under pure GPLv3. So my intent is respected for my version, and the Linux developers' intent is respected for their version. The Linux developers may not like that I can do this, but the impact of my version will limited by the fact that my code won't be accepted into the main kernel tree.
In this GPLv3+DrmException scenario, Linux will miss out on the advantages I see with reasons (A) and (B) above, but it would still retain much of the value of reason (C). This is because while there is no catastrophe imminent, being able to remove the exception later means that if a catastrophe ever looks imminent, and it looks like GPLv3's protections against DRM might be useful, then the Linux kernel developers have the option of removing the exception and using vanilla GPLv3.
So for reasons (A) to (C), I think something like the vanilla GPLv3 would be best, but GPLv3+DrmException also has advantages over GPL version 2 - one of which is that it means having an escape route. Having an escape route is valuable not only because you might need it, but also because the existence of an escape route reduces the chance that you will ever need it - people don't invest in an attack that is easily escaped from.
End notes:
(For ease of linking, each paragraph in this article has a html anchor.)
(c) FSFE 2006. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
When you end up in the hospit
When you end up in the hospital hooked up to a device that keeps you alive you, doctors, nurses, technicians, family members, friends, the patient in the bed next to you, his/her family and friends all should be allowed to tinker with that device too! That freedom is an absolute must! Make sure you and all of us have it!
Or even better!! What if YOU
Or even better!! What if YOU are hooked up in intensive care, your life depending on that very machine that noone else sells (patent, very advanced, other reasons), and the software ...
... is timed to stop working if you hospital forgets to pay the yearly fee...and for some reason someone forgot to pay in due time?
... has a bug that must be fixed inmediately, but the company that made the hardware went bankrupt?
... could be updated by a much algorith that is patented where the machine was bough, but the patent is not legal in your country?
I could go on with 10 more examples...
How Tivo can cut software support to /dev/null
One solution is to allow the end users to perform a bare-metal restore. This solution can be used at Tivo or any company.
For example, a factory image of their as-shipped software (all settings, all configurations, etc.) can be put into a PROM (read only) and this PROM would restore the hard drive to the factory defaults.
If the user ever needs to perform this operation, then it can be as simple as pressing a "RESET" button. When the RESET button is pressed, it activates the PROM code to stop the Tivo, erase the current hard drive, reformat, etc., etc., etc., until it is as they shipped it from the factory. Maybe even utilize a separate memory module (with the write functionality disabled) if the PROM itself hasn't enough memory.
Would not this take care of ALL software support issues. Tivo (or any company who want to take advantage of open source SOFTWARE) are now only left with hardware support issues--as this should be their responsibility anyway.
P.S. There is a minor price increase for this extra PROM functionality which could be passed unto the customer. I believe this is acceptable.
Cost, cost, cost, cost... all
Cost, cost, cost, cost... all of it imposed on the 99.9999% of people that don't give a crap about the FSF or GPL.
Sad, but true...
Sad, but true...
GPL v3
When I first heard what Tivo had done, I was astounded. They had completely violated what the GPL was all about, through a loophole. That's spitting in the face of over 10 years' of community experience with that license.
I'm surprised the Linux Kernel developers are so resistant to GPLv3. To me, it's a superior license and much needed in these times.
-Mike
Sued into oblivion
Since Tivo has been in the MPAA's sights from the beginning, how long do you think it would have been until they were sued into oblivion by them, if they allowed people to mod the software so shows could be redistributed?
Point blank DRM like this costs money. Money to develop the software, money to develop the chipset, and money to impliment. Companies do not spend money on these things unless they expect a ROI. They use an open OS with open software to run it. They almost can't loose money on letting people run other software on the box:
TIVO loses boatloads of cash when the MPAA comes in & says - "your device is being used to aid in copyright infringement & you knew or reasonably should have known that it would happen, yet you did nothing to stop it. Pay us $6B."
Why in the world should I car
Why in the world should I care if TiVo and the MPAA battle over who gets to be the biggest parasite? Let both shrivel and die, if they can't find a business model that doesn't involve creating prisons for "consumers". When I buy bread, I help pay for a long chain of people involved in supplying that product just the way I want it. I don't help pay for chains to be installed on my ankles to force future extractions of payments from me.
When I pay for someone else to grow, harvest, transport and grind the wheat, and pay for someone else to make, bake, slice, package and distribute the bread, I give no guarantees that I will continue to pay them in the future, nor do I (knowingly) pay anyone to steal anything they need to provide such service, anywhere along that chain of production. If TiVo can't figure out how to use Free (libre) software without making it non-free, let them bake bread.
The price of using Free software is keeping it Free. The GPL is intended to protect the freedom of the user, whether that user is a "consumer", a developer or a corporation. "[A]ccess to the source code is a precondition of this." Providing the source code is not the goal of the GPL; it is a means to the goal. TiVo provides the source code, but revokes the freedoms the GPL was intended to guarantee. TiVo's circumvention of the GPL, by eliminating the user's ability to use the software if it is modified, is equivalent to wrongful taking of the wheat that others grew, or wrongful taking of the communal land on which it was grown, or wrongful exclusion of all other transporters from the highway that the community built.
They didn't lock the Software, they locked the Hardware
So they put the shackles on the hardware, and then sold shackled hardware. If you don't want to buy shackled hardware, then don't.
Question: What if Tivo, upong seeing some GPLv3 licensed software it decided it would like to use, changed it's "business model"? So instead of _selling_ you a piece of hardware, they _lease_ it to you, for a _one time fee_. How will GPLv3 solve that?
Also, as to the Catastrophe Protection merits of GPLv3, well, v3 simply wouldn't stop it from happening. If a consortium chooses to take over the HW distribution chain, top to bottom, and prevent _any_ libre SW from running on it, well, it will. At that point, you better be prepared to roll your own hardware. From that perspective, Tivo is giving us a heads up. Be ready to roll your own hardware, and here's the SW to start practicing with. Sounds like a benefit to me.
But - they have blocked others from doing the same thing
There has been a successful court case where TIVO prevailed.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060413-6599.html
It involves a SOFTWARE patent on a product that contains LINUX (that in effect creates a monopoly block around free uses of LINUX in some ways)! Hey, the fact that TIVO won and can have patent that covers the work of others, and in effect results in a block of others from doing the same (freely using LINUX as in free speech) is wrong! AND the fact is a fact, and that fact is that the court's action in this case is a VERY scary one. As they are using free software (LINUX) and gaining the full rights of use of a type of use of LINUX. That is wrong, and the foundation of their position is one that "evolved" from their locked box ideas built on the backs of free software writers (that would actually prevent those programmers from using LINUX in certain ways), and TIVO's real motive to have a software patent was to protect their stock market postition from the posibility that some others will step up and compete with them (this even stops a better product from being developed as TIVO now has a court supported lock on the whole market as a genre)! Of course there is an appeal process and one hopes that reason prevails... but, this TIVO action will be repeated, and repeated again, and we will see further reductions in free use of LINUX by the others that will follow TIVO. I agree with all the GPL v3 provisions so far, and if it takes a decade to move all the copyrights to GPL v3 then that is fine. If it takes waiting for certain code to move, then let it be rewitten or we can wait until the copyright expires. LINUX is going to be around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. What is a few years to get a working kernel up and running on GPLv3 with DRM and anti-software patent parts included... so what if LINUS disagrees!
Software patents are simply w
Software patents are simply wrong, as is a lot of other problems in the patent process.
GPLv3 won't solve any of those problems.
Tivo can: Lease the box instead of sell it; or ROM the software. (They can still upgrade their box by sending out new ROM chips - not covenient but do-able. And they can use HW locking to prevent you from using your home-rolled ROM chips in their boards.)
Courts already ruled in Tivo's favor
Sony was sued for selling VCRs, for the same reason: it was a device that was heavily used for copying. It went to the Supreme Court. Sony won. That precedent explicitly made time-shifting legal, and didn't require Sony to do anything like locking the tape into the unit so you couldn't run off more for your neighbors.
Now, the MPAA can go to Congress and buy a new law, but so far they haven't bought one that would outlaw a hackable Tivo.
I don't see the problem. Tiv
I don't see the problem. Tivo made their source code available and contributed a large number of patches back. That's totally in the spirit of the GPL. If you want to run Tivo's software on a platform of your choosing, just port it!
Why do you think that you have some fundamental right to run whatever software you want on that box? You probably don't even own the box itself! (most PVRs are leased -- check your contract) I truly don't understand why the word "Tivoization" whips a few people into a frothy panic. As far as I can tell, everything is working as it should.
Actually it relates to why th
Actually it relates to why the GPL was created in the first place. In 70s, it was standard practise for operating systems to be free software. However, as the 80s rolled along, people starting to "cash in on all the free stuff" and started creating closed operating systems. It reached the point where there were virtually no free operating systems out there and ggetting device information was virtually impossible without an NDA, so creating a free operating system was a nonstarter for most individuals. The GPL 2 was created to allow people to safely co-operating to create such an operating sytem without fear that they'd be "ripped off" the way they were in the early 80s. What a single person couldn't do, a group of like minded "quid pro quo" developers were eventually able to do. It turned an "absurd idea" in "1980s wisdom" into an "obvious unavoidable reality" in "2000s wisdom".
Linux may be popular now, but GPL 3 supporters fear a return to the mind 1980s, and DRM makes it possible. Yes you may have the code, but it's useless if *all* machines can only run "officially approved" source code. It seems far fetched now, but so did the 1980s lockup in the 1970s.
How on earth are *all* machin
How on earth are *all* machines going to suddenly only run "officially approved" source code? Is the free market going to disappear? Will the U.S. government be completely subverted by RIAA lobbyists? Will they outlaw unfettered microcontrollers? Is that even possible??
I flat out don't buy it. I think there is more of a chance of global thermonuclear war than there is of the sort of scenario you paint. I'd suggest building your fallout shelter and buying a few years' food before even considering modifying the GPLv3 to try to avert that situation.
Besides, it's not like the GPLv3 would have any effect on this anyway! If the RIAA completely takes over the government and the complacent populace goes along with it, the GPLv3 is not going to make one whit of difference. Fighting DRM with a copyright law? That's a strange notion at best.
The free market has already l
The free market has already largely disappeared--I'd say "oligopoly" describes the computer hardware market pretty well.
The US government is already largely subverted by RIAA lobbyists. I thought everyone knew that. Hello, DMCA (as only the most obvious example; consider the "Mickey Mouse" copyright extension; consider laws vastly increasing the scope of artistic work considered "work for hire" and therefore not copyrightable by the artist but rather the corporation who paid them to do the creating; consider the current threat to net neutrality).
Is it even possible to outlaw unfettered microcontrollers? They can outlaw anything they want. Effectively? From a technological standpoint, perhaps not. From a network effect standpoint? You bet your boots. Look at China and the internet--their censorship more or less works, for all the net cowboy claims of "The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it". If Dell and Compaq and Toshiba and Intel and AMD and a few other top manufacturers are all complying, then you might if you're a geek be able to go to your local white box shop run by young Chinese computer nerds and get something without DRM on it. But there won't be anything at the big stores. You'll be one of the few, the proud, the holdout outlaws, which is glamorous as heck but irrelevant in the broader world.
All this "Oh, those foolish alarmists" talk is silly. We're supposed to be more afraid of people seeing us as afraid of something (well, except terrorism--gotta be obsessively afraid of that) than we are of the actual developments that are obvious all around us. Talk of what could never happen looks a little bit sick when the US just passed a law saying they can lock up anyone they want without trial for as long as they like. Presumably, that would have been in the "never happen" category a few years ago in the World's Greatest Democracy, home of Freedom.
huh?
And you think the GPL V3 will stop that?
Maybe.
Maybe. The history of the 1980s has shown that without the "quid pro quo" nature of the GPLv2 license, proprietary software *will* win out and convert a market that was mostly free software into the near eradication of free software.
If DRM allows people to leach off of free software and lock it up the same way that it did in the 1980s, free software will be decimated the same way. An upgraded "quid pro quo" license that prevents DRM leachers, would at least slow down the deterioration.
I personally don't know if DRM is a passing fad or not. Copy-protection came and went several times in the last 30 years because it was unworkable. But there's a lot more pressure from the industry and governments to "build a secure channel to protect media and to combat terrorists" through technical and legal means and the consumer market seems more willing to "accept a few inconvences" to "gain easy access to content" and we've reached the stage where computers are so fast that it's feasable to run all your installed OSes in an isolated virtual machine (i.e. Pacifica or Vanderpool).
Basically, the time is ripe for manditory DRM. Whether it succeeds or not is anyone's guess. One thing is certain. The next decade will determine if DRM is a fad or free software is.
Don't know. Do you think doi
Don't know. Do you think doing nothing will stop it?
When you start high school, y
When you start high school, you should get involved with their Model UN program. Political action will help avoid thermonuclear war more than software licenses. I think that's what the parent posts were saying.
Seems like open software is a
Seems like open software is already losing out to closed hardware. Let me trot out what should be worn out examples. Near as I can tell 3D video hardware is progressing much faster than reverse engineering for open drivers. Wireless network hardware manufacturers aren't particularly cooperative either.
This next paragraph is supposed to have some useful recommendation for keeping control of both hardware and software in the hands of the users. It's easy to see the economics of proprietary systems; much harder to see the economics of open systems.
And Intel is producing what?
And Intel is producing what? Open 3D drivers...
There is a project for reverse engineering nVidia drivers...
It seems to me that everybody already forgot about the "Trusted Computing", you see for "content providers" complete DRM stack IS the holy grail. This is the only way they can assure that NOTHING on the way
from broadcast to your TV/monitor/stereo can record the stream.
So if DRM content is the future, you can
1) not play it on GPL3 kernel
2) can play it on GPL2 signed kernel you can't modify.
As I see it, the problem is WHY (or THAT) we need a signed kernel,
not whether everybody can sign their kernel or not.
History of software...
Oh, come on. Please don't buy this rewritten history.
Software "used to be free" (it came free of charge, usually in source code form) with the machine (which was usually rented, not sold). It did little good trying to share this in a world where there were a few hundred machines (closely guarded ones, at that) that could run said software. Open source started as an organized activity with SHARE, the IBM user's group (around 1955). In 1960 IBM "unbundled" the software (i.e., started charging for software licenses) with OS/360. That created the posibility of a software industry apart from the hardware builders. This was fueled in part by the appearance of IBM clones by Amdahl et al. By the '70ies, almost all software was propietary. Sure, if you had some kind of special arrangement with the supplier, you could often get the source to look at or play around (and that hasn't changed that much). Sharing said source (or binaries) was a big no-no, tinkering was strictly for your own amusement and at your own risk. All just a result of the changing relative costs of harware and software: The first mainframes costed millions, and were less capable than your average pocket calculator, there was not much point in the software. Today's low-end PC is huge in capacity (and widespread), developing software for that costs billions. So the industry shifted...
Unix is a strange phenomenon, as AT&T couldn't sell licenses for profit, they essentially gave it away to universities, where all sorts of people started tinkering, in the process creating the rich software landscape we enjoy on Linux today. The BSD trials in the '90ies put an (temporal) end to that branch of open sharing. If it wasn't for that, probably nobody would have ever heard of Linux or GPL. Look around you, the most influential open source software is not GPLed: sendmail, X11, apache, TeX, Perl, ... And lots of what is GPLed takes GPL just as a nice license, not on some star-eyed "software has to be free" ideology. Exactly the stance of Linus.
Sure, in a graduate school environment you are supposed to look at what others do, critizise it, and build on it. The world outside hasn't yet seen that this (the very foundation of the scientific and technical revolution that ended the middle ages) is useful elsewhere, not just for science. A license applied to a tiny minority of software won't do anything to change this. GPLv2 didn't either.
Operating systems were free s
Operating systems were free software in the 1970s? I call bullshit. Operating systems came from the computer vendors and cost real money: IBM's OS/360 and successors, DEC's TOPS-10, TOPS-20, and VMS, and contemporaneous products from Univac, Honeywell, Burroughs, CDC, Data General, XDS. Unix didn't come from the computer vendor, it came from AT&T and cost $20,000 (for the sixth edition) to commercial users, though it was offered free to educational sites.
The only resemblance to today's free software is that, when you paid big bucks for your operating system, you usually got the source code as well. I was shocked in 1979 when my employer bought a Data General NOVA machine and we didn't get the OS source.
Loophole! You want to talk LO
Loophole! You want to talk LOOPHOLE just take a look at loadable modules.
Just HOW MANY modules out there are for SVR4 Unix device drivers without source...
In 1995, Torvalds posted to the USENET group gnu.misc.discuss the following statement
"If somebody wants to port his SVR4 driver to linux but doesn't want to GPL it, I feel that he should have the right to do that, using modules. After all, the driver wasn't actually derived from linux itself: it's a real driver in its own right, so I don't feel that I have the moral right to force him to switch copyrights."
For a good time:
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20021021_189.html#32
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735
http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/lkm.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2006/08/why_binaryonly_linux_kernel...
That's comedy
First you say, "I'd like to encourage discussion of this issue so that people can make comments now (via gplv3.fsf.org) which can be taken into account for draft 3."
And then you say, "Reasons (A) and (C) are why the final version of GPLv3 will retain some clause to preserve the freedom to modify software and run it on the computer that the original software was intended to run on."
Um, what? Why do you want more discussion? You yourself make it absolutely clear that you've already made up your minds. For more evidence on how closed-minded the FSF has become, check out this winner: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/drm-evil
Mr. O'Riordan, the opinions of a very large number of GPLv2 users are currently being ignored everywhere else. Exactly why should they take the time to have their opnions ignored on gplv3.fsf.org as well?
My eyes bugged out when I rea
My eyes bugged out when I read this:
If the Linux kernel developers decide that none of those three reasons are agreeable, there is another option. Draft 2 of GPLv3 provides infrastructure for adding exceptions (called "additional permissions" in section 7a) to the licence.
The Linux kernel developers might add an exception saying that distributors don't have to pass on to recipients any required keys or passwords.
All such exceptions can be removed by others...
First you insert a bunch of new language that a large number of people actively dislike, then you suggest that they add additional, even MORE questionable language of their own to remove it?
Talk about overcomplex! I don't know about law, but if this were a code review and you suggested writing a plugin to fix the plugin, I think you'd be handed your ass. How about a little refactoring here?
Re: My eyes bugged out when I..."
It is a dark path that Stallman and O'Riordan are leading us down.
Ya both of you may not like i
Ya both of you may not like it, but your both full of crap. The 'extra permissions' concept is sound and makes perfect and 100% sense.
The most significant role that the GPL has in a Linux distribution (not just a kernel, not just GNU, but as in software that is actually usefull) is that GPL serves as the lowest common denominator.
That is probably 90% of the system is GPL compatable. This means something to people. The software is never going to get more restrictive then what the GPL allows. This is easy to understand and keeps the legal bullshit down to a minimum.
Now for people wanting to make software on their own the GPLv3 may be to restrictive for what they want. For instance they may want it to be able to be linked against propriatory software, or that under special circumnstances it's ok not to have to distribute the code.. or that in certain specific ways it's ok to link to propriatory stuff, but not in other manners (for example: public interfaces versus private interfaces, which currently can't be done under the GPLv2 and have it make any sense at all.)
Stuff like that. So right now in GPLv2-land the only sane way to do it is to _create_your_own_license_.
When you do "create your own license" game, ala CC, the likelihood that you'll get it right is pretty freaking remote. This shit goes on all the time and is a common problem. Debian legal has had to get many people to change licensing stuff because it did things that they didn't intend.
However with the GPLv3 with it's added permissions model you get to take a license that has a very sound legal standing and has been reviewed and debated by hundreds and hundreds of different people, corporations, lawyers, and whatnot. Then you just add the permission to make it 'more free' for whatever you want.
And to keep it from turning into a legal morass the permissions you add won't ever make it non-GPLv3 compatable. A person using the code will always know that even if it gets confusing on what permissions you have it will always never have more restrictions on what you can do with the source code then what is provided under the pure GPLv3.
It's actually a very clean and very intellegent way of dealing with a non-trivial number of problems that have cropped up with licensing issues and the GPLv2.
In fact out of all the changes the added permissions model in section 7a is probably the most desirable feature and will cut down on much of licensing problems faced with distributions today.
You're full of crap. Nobody
You're full of crap. Nobody is arguing against the permissions model. Save your breath.
Adding unwanted DRM restrictions, then adding more language to the license to remove those unwanted restrictions... that's just strange. I can't believe anybody is seriously suggesting it.
So here's a much more realistic suggestion: leave the contentious DRM language out of the GPLv3! That way the GPLv3 becomes a license that everybody can agree on. Anybody who wants to FURTHER restrict their software can simply add whatever clause they want.
I agree, the added permissions model looks great. Why not use it?
Doesn't work that way.
No, they can't, unless they want to make their software undistributable. The GPL as a license allows additional permissions but no additional restrictions. If it did, it would allow people to add the restriction "This software is under the GPL with the additional restriction that you have to pay me $200 for every copy you make.".
If a copyright holder distributes it under such a license he is essentially saying "You may distribute this program if you don't restrict the people you are distributing to other than what's in the GPL (that's the part that in the GPL) and you have to restrict people to pay me $200 (or disallow DRM) (that's the additional restriction part). Since no one can fulfill both conditions, the conditions for the license are never met thus making the software undistributeable.
Re: Doesn't work that way.
> No, they can't, unless they want to make their software undistributable. The GPL as a license allows additional permissions but no additional restrictions.
So who's fault is it that the GPL is incompatible with pretty much anything that is the in the least non-GPL?
The GPL *is* viral, even with respect to its previous versions.
I happen to be a fan of GPL, mostly, and I know that this is horribly non-PC. But GPL *is* like a cancer. GPLv2 is. GPLv3 even more so.
It's time to call a spade a spade.
Well, said Mr Ballmer
Well said, Mr Ballmer -- your cancer analogy is well known and has made it far. Only that the original quote is that Linux is a cancer. So I guess all of the people here are cancerous.
Regarding the "viral" denounciation of the GPL, it depends on the point of view: If you believe that giving people control over their computers is sick and that people should not have the freedom to learn how computers work and adapt them to their needs, then "viral" is an adequate description.
But if you (like me) think that people should have those freedoms, and that the rights of the people writing the code should be respected, then "vaccinating" is a more apt description.
The biological mechanism used is fundamentally the same.
Which term you take only depends on (and shows) your personal opinion.
GPL lowest common denominator?
Couldn't have said it better myself. One big point is that currently GPLv2 is that common denominator, and any GPLvX that comes around can only add restrictions. This is exactly one of the reasons (perhaps not expressed so clearly) to be against any ... or later license wording.
The whole GPLv3 fracas shows clearly that there is a substantial change in the license. A rewritten, clarified, internationalized, GPLv2 (call it "GPLv2.1") might cut it. A wholesale change won't.
I completely agree
It doesn't just affect DRM, there are tons of other mix and match parts that people can add to the GPL3. GPL3 not really a license, it's more like lego and you build your own license out of the blocks.
And here's the other thing, all the people who completely understand the GPL are told to only discuss it behind closed doors in the GPL3 discussion process. They're waiting to screw us over in a surprise way at the end of the year.
At first they were all like, it's too early to criticize the GPL3 then they were like it's too late to criticize the GPL3. And all along they said, "No. You can't criticize the GPL3 without going through the secret GPL3 process behind close doors."
What a crock.
The FSFE appear not to get it
There is no interest in moving to a not-quite GPLv3 when the GPLv2 is fine. In addition many of us would block a move to GPLv3 without DRM clause. GPLv2 deals with DRM reasonably well (and we have out of court settlements supporting that view though not court ones).
The belief the kernel could be relicensed sanely is also somewhat of a happy pill dream, as a little economic analysis and rigourous thinking would show.
You know, even the almighty k
You know, even the almighty kernel can be forked with patience and perseverance, so don't shout at the top of your lungs just yet. You'll cry (but nobody would really care anyway) when you get beaten at your own game. Laugh all you want, block it all you want, but we'll see who'll have the last laugh, because this shit is just beginning to unfold.
You know, even the almighty k...
Don't you mean patience, perserverance, manpower about 100 strong, each with superb technical expertise, and someone at the helm with the design-sense of and people-sense of Linus Torvalds?
Otherwise, why wouldn't it be easier to simply finish up The Hurd and crush Linux with its superior design?
Hmmm?
You know, even the almighty kernel...
Nonsense. Yes, you can fork the kernel. But it will stay GPLv2 until you have rewritten everything. Even the fabled Hurd has enough GPLv2 (Linux) code in it that making it GPLv3 would be a serious rewriting enterprise. Won't happen, the FSF hasn't got the manpower.
GPLv2 deals with DRM reasonab
This is an interesting statement, because it seems to contradict what Linus said about DRM not being a problem, or even an issue. Does anyone know more about what the previous poster (truly Alan?) is alluding to?
Either way, in the TiVo case opinions seem to deviate whether that mechanism described has truly worked so well.
Alan Cox has posted before th
Alan Cox has posted before that he believes the GPLv2 bars DRM. Linus obviously disagrees. Obviously people can disagree about how to interpret a license. The actual answer in this case probably depends on local laws and details about the exact situation.
Is this documented somewhere?
So if I understood you correctly, then Alan Cox disagrees with what TiVo has done, and thinks it is not allowed by GPLv2, even. Is this documented somewhere?
If it is, I wonder why he feels that "out of court resolution" has worked, since TiVo is still selling its devices in what seems essentially parasitic fashion to Linux and Free Software.
What's conveniently suppressed
It surprises me that one problem for the Linux development under GPL3 never gets mentioned: a lot of embedded Linux is used in devices where laws REQUIRE that the user can't change the code. Cell phones are an example where modifications could lead to serious network and security issues and I am all for making sure that hackers are unable to work on it. If Linux would go "DRM-free" cellphone manufacturers would just go the proprietary route again. Just look how much they (and TIVO!) have contributed!
The simple sentence missing in the GPL V3 DRM clause: "unless encryption is required by law" could keep them on board.
To me the GPL V3 DRM activity is not driven by rational thoughts but by the "religion" to also free all hardware. In this sense the GPL should also demand that the manufacturer has to disclose all schematics and mask sets for the IC's and the pcb layout used in the equipment.
And it's so simple to circumvent the GPL V3 clause: Just use an encryption key to load a new software binary. The loader is proprietary and in hardware in the CPU and FSF's idea is toast.
We are close to releasing some Open Source software and fortunately this stuff came up just at the right time to prevent us from using the recommended "GPL V2 or later". It will just have the same as the kernel; GPL V2, no later version.
Actually, everybody should exclude newer versions! Assume that the FSF get's "taken over" by some anti-FOSS group and they make a GPL Vxx which restricts the freedom???? Linus made a VERY wise decission when he decided to go with one license version only.
>kjs
FSF getting "taken over"
Nobody sane believes the FSF will get taken over by someone anti-FOSS. But a lot of people consider it very possible that it will get more and more greedy as time goes on, until its philosophy no longer matches with the majority of FOSS developers out there. If you have your own opinions, feelings, believes, or whatever about software, you should use a specific license that states that. To use a license that says "these terms, or whatever terms some named body comes up with later", is to say your philosophy is a function of theirs. When they change their minds, so do you. You become much like a spineless spouse answering every question with "I think whatever my wife/husband thinks!" When someone asks "what do you feel people should be allowed to do with your software?" you're effectively answering "I think whatever FSF thinks!" The world has enough mindless followers. If you really want to make a difference in the software world, think for yourself, and represent your own philosophy.
If it feels good to be a follower (or a zealot), go ahead and give FSF the power to decide your future license terms. But if you care about your software, you should set your own terms. Upgrade it later if you want (maybe even match the latest FSF product every time), but set your own terms. It's just common sense. And every time the FSF gets a little more greedy, it's going to get more and more obvious that blindly trusting them to decide your future terms is just not smart.
Irrelevent forks
A key selling point of the GPLv2 is that you can't fork the code permanently. That's the only reason why people say forks aren't a big deal.
With the GPLv3 Sun could take the kernel code, add a DRM clause and never return any code. They would be able to use all Linux drivers to Solaris and Linux wouldn't get anything in return.
To me the point of the GPLv2 is that no one gets screwed. No one can take my code and put it in their program without giving me something in return.
The only reason Sun released OpenOffice was to screw Microsoft. The only reason they created their own License for Solaris instead of using the GPL was so that it wouldn't help Linux. These guys want to screw us and the FSF is trying to give them an electric screw driver.
How is opening up the source
How is opening up the source code to the high-quality OS (better than Linux in many respects) "screwing"?
I will argue the other way around: everyone who is using GPL is "screwing" people who do not share their beliefs. GPL followers force others either to become GPL followers themselves ("viral" nature) or reinvent the wheel (since they aren't allowed to use GPL'd code with GPL incompatible license)?
Very insightful post is here (google cached; the original site is down):
I'm getting tired of GPLv3 pr
I'm getting tired of GPLv3 proponents such as O'Riordan who have never written any significant piece of open source software themselves. Why don't they understand that if you are not a developer of open source software, your opinion on how to license it is irrelevant?
Technocracy?
Yours seems to be a comment familiar to those heard in the debate of Technocracy vs Democracy. It also implies that pure amount of code written somehow makes a person more likely to understand larger political consequences. In my experience, things are not that simple, and humankind has fared pretty well with concepts such as division of labor and democracy. There are good reasons for both.
But even so, your comment is besides the point: RMS is much higher up the "single individual contribution in code" scale than even Linus is, who is already way beyond what most people will ever achieve, and certainly above Mr O'Riordan. So if your approach of "whoever wrote more code should make the decision" were appropriate, you should be for GPLv3, not against.
But then, things are not that simple. Linus is an excellent technical coordinator of a project, he is not very good at keeping an eye on the long-term perspective of his decisions, as the BitKeeper debacle has shown. He has a long history of making erratic comments and decisions.
That does not diminish the size of his contribution, or the value of his person, nor does it mean he deserves any less respect. It only shows that not everyone is equally good at all things, and writing code is a very different thing from understanding the far-reaching consequences of certain political decisions.
Technocracy?
I'm impressed by how you managed to derive a pro-GPLv3 position from my complaint about non-developing GPLv3 proponents. My compliments for your creativity!
RMS' code, and BitKeeper - Linux?
RMS personal acomplishments as a coder? Emacs (which forked off xemacs). gcc (which forked into egcs and then the rift was healed as the real control or the software had long been in Cygnus' hands). Not very much to show as code, very bad light on him as a project leader.
BitKeeper was a tool, and an excellent one at that. There was nothing remotely like it available as open source when it was used. Sure, in rather short order Linus et al wrote git when bk became unavailable, but that was starting from the (by the rather long) experience with bk.
I'd say Linus has shown much more code, and has proved several times that he is able to lead a huge, distributed bunch of developers. And (perhaps much more importantly), he pioneered the "bazaar" development which made Linux (and many others!) the success they are today, while RMS holds close to the "cathedral" model to this day.