login
Search
A lengthy debate that began with a suggestion to dual license the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 [story] continues on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Throughout the ongoing thread Linux creator Linus Torvalds has spoken out on the GPLv2, the upcoming GPLv3, the BSD license, Tivo, the Free Software Foundation, and much more. During the discussion, he was asked we he chose the GPLv2 over the BSD license when he's obviously not a big fan of the FSF. Linus explained:
"Because I think the GPLv2 is a great license. And I don't like the FSF's radical world-view, but I am able to separate the license (the GPLv2) from the author and source of the license (rms and the FSF). Why do people always confuse the two? The GPLv2 stands on its own. The fact that I disagree with the FSF on how to act has _zero_ relevance for my choice of license.
"[...] But for a project I actually care about, I would never choose the BSD license. The license doesn't encode my fundamental beliefs of 'fairness'. I think the BSD license encourages a 'everybody for himself' mentality, and doesn't encourage people to work together, and to merge."
"Let me put this in source management terms, since I've also been working on a source control management project for the last few years: the BSD license encourages 'branching', but the fact is, branching is not really all that interesting. What's interesting is 'merging': the branching is just a largely irrelevant prerequisite to be able to merge.
"The GPLv2 encourages *merging*. Again, the right to 'branch' needs to be there in order for merges to be possible, but the right to branch is actually much less important than the right to 'merge'."
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] To: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:25:05 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH [email blocked] wrote: > > > (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers > > hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.) > > You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-) I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and cannot read or think for themselves. Any time you disagree with the FSF, you "misunderstand" (insert condescending voice) the issue. _Please_ don't continue that idiocy. Disagreement and thinking that the FSF is controlling and putting its fingers where they don't belong is _not_ misunderstanding. It's just not "blind and unquestioning obedience". Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:11:16 -0300 On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH [email blocked] wrote: >> >> > (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers >> > hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.) >> >> You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-) > I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and > cannot read or think for themselves. Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so? Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the former. Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2 models better your intentions than GPLv3. Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect others' freedoms, has never been what moved you. Rather, you seem to perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution, rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires. In fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago. With this different frame of mind, it is not surprising at all that you don't find GPLv3 a better license. With different goals in mind, reasonable people can reach different conclusions. But claiming that GPLv3 is changing the spirit of the license, or that it prohibits certain kinds of software, is plain false. In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms. Sure, this evokes a number of other nice behaviors in various players, and it's clear to me that it's in these other nice behaviors that you seek when you choose GPLv2. There's nothing inherently wrong in that. However, it seems to me that GPLv3 would do an even better job at serving these goals than GPLv2, even if the holes v3 plugs that enabled players to disrespect others' freedoms might steer away the participants who are not willing to contribute, to really be part of your community. It's not like you lose much. But the new defenses against disrespect for freedoms introduced in GPLv3 may turn out to be very helpful, not only in protecting your community from external threats, but also in strengthening participation, as the benefits of participation outweight the perceived costs of respecting others' freedoms. It sure seems to me that trading some threats and non-contributors for some more-committed participants is a good idea. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: [email blocked] (Lennart Sorensen) Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:14:32 -0400 On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:11:16PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never > agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2 > models better your intentions than GPLv3. I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same spirit as the GPL v2. I guess it comes down to what people thought the spirit of the GPL v2 was. There certainly seems to be a variety of opinions on that, and I am not sure the FSF's opinion on it agrees with what most others believe, but that would be rather difficult to determine. -- Len Sorensen
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:38:14 -0300 On Jun 13, 2007, [email blocked] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: > I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same > spirit as the GPL v2. I guess it comes down to what people thought the > spirit of the GPL v2 was. So let's go back to the preamble, that provides motivations and some guidance as to the interpretation of the legal text (i.e., the spirit of the license): [...] the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. [...] [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet this spirit? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:02:09 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have > the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for > this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get > it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of > it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. > > To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid > anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the > rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities > for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify > it. > > [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or > for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have > > > Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet > this spirit? What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Can you prove that God doesn't exist?" The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*. So the whole "to protect these rights, we take away other rigths" argument hinges on the false premise that the new language in GPLv3 is somehow needed. It's not. You still had the right to distribute the software (and modify it), even if the *hardware* is limited to only one version. In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted, and yes, I think that violates the spirit of the GPLv2 preamble! Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can not use this software to make a weapon". Do you see the problem? It restricts peoples rights, would you agree? Would you _also_ agree that it doesn't actually follow that "To protect your rights" logic AT ALL? And this is exactly where the GPLv3 *diverges* from the above logic. If I build hardware, and sell it with software installed, you can still copy and modify the software. You may not do so within the confines of the hardware I built, but the hardware was never under the license in the first place. In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it protects them. It does *not* cause any additional stated freedoms - quite the reverse. It tries to free up stuff that was never mentioned in the first place. And then the FSF has the gall to call themselves the "protector of freedoms", and claim that everybody else is evil. What a crock. In other words, if you want to argue for the changes in GPLv3, you need to CHANGE THE PREAMBLE TOO! You should change: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, that you can do so in place on your devices, even if those devices weren't licensed under the GPL; and that you know you can do these things. where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if those devices weren't licensed under the GPL". That wasn't there in the original. Yet it's what the GPLv3 tries to shove down our throats in the name of "freedom". I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last six years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes "protecting your freedom" is *anything*but*! Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:49:23 -0300 On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have >> the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for >> this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get >> it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of >> it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. >> >> To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid >> anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the >> rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities >> for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify >> it. >> >> [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or >> for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have >> >> >> Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet >> this spirit? > What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Can you prove that God doesn't > exist?" By this reasoning, it sounds like you've been claiming that "God does exist", even though you can't prove it. It shouldn't be anywhere that difficult to show that the GPLv3 fails to meet the spirit of the GPLs. You just have to show a single counter-example. Since there are so many objections to the changes, it shouldn't be that hard. Can you at least try? > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says > that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*. Oh, good, let's take this one. if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] you must give the recipients all the rights that you have So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. It doesn't give the recipients the same right. Oops. Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me. Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit. > In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted, That's correct. They don't need to be restricted. The whole idea of copyleft, implemented through the GPL, is not based on needs, but rather on the wish to defend the freedoms established in the preamble from those who would rather not respect them. Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer) from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR? Do you deny that they can still do it themselves? > Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can > not use this software to make a weapon". This would make GPLv3 a non-Free Software license. But the GPLv3 last call draft doesn't say anything along these lines. You can use the software as much as you like, even in DVRs, and even to implement DRM in them, as long as you respect the users' freedoms to change and share the software. Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the device, you must tell the recipient how to do it. Otherwise, the freedom to modify the program is being too severely limited. And, in the particular case of TiVo, it's a case of distributing incomplete source code, of refraining from including functional portions of the source code. > In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it > protects them. While you look at it from the point of view of TiVo, who wants to be free to prohibit people from modifying the workings of the device it sells while it can still modify it itself, and it does that in order to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing things they're legally entitled to do, I see a lot more prohibitions than freedoms in what TiVo does. I don't understand why you'd stand up for it. Is it more important that a single company be allowed to impose prohibitions on others in order for its business model to work, than to maintain the spirit of hacking and sharing that enabled Free Software and Linux to flourish? Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that stopped people from modifying Linux in them? > where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if > those devices weren't licensed under the GPL". You're mistakenly focusing on the device. As you say, the device is not under the license. What's under the license is the software in it. And that license spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the software. > I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last > six years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going > on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes > "protecting your freedom" is *anything*but*! Is this why you're overreacting? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Daniel Hazelton [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:42:02 -0400 On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: <snip> > > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF > > says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*. > > Oh, good, let's take this one. > > if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] > you must give the recipients all the rights that you have > > So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. > > TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. > > It doesn't give the recipients the same right. > > Oops. > > Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me. > > Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit. Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs? TiVO gives you every right to the Linux kernel that they recieved. What they don't give you the right to do is use modified versions on their *HARDWARE* - which they have *NEVER* given you any rights to, except for "normal use". (And no, it isn't legal to put those 200G hard drives in your TiVO no matter what you think) > > In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted, > > That's correct. They don't need to be restricted. The whole idea of > copyleft, implemented through the GPL, is not based on needs, but > rather on the wish to defend the freedoms established in the preamble > from those who would rather not respect them. > > Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer) > from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR? Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* covered by the GPL. Do you understand that, or do I need to break out the finger-puppets next ? > Do you deny that they can still do it themselves? > > > Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can > > not use this software to make a weapon". > > This would make GPLv3 a non-Free Software license. > > But the GPLv3 last call draft doesn't say anything along these lines. > > You can use the software as much as you like, even in DVRs, and even > to implement DRM in them, as long as you respect the users' freedoms > to change and share the software. Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it > is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the > device, you must tell the recipient how to do it. Otherwise, the > freedom to modify the program is being too severely limited. And this unnaturally restricts the freedom of hardware manufacturers. If they add a custom, internal connector so a repair shop can restore the hardware to its *FACTORY* state then it is "possible to install modified versions", provided the person doing it has the specialized hardware needed. And this is what the FSF, RMS and yes, *YOU*, Alexandre, fail to realize - the GPL covers *ONLY* the software. It has *ZERO* legal standing when applied to hardware. Not even the most draconian of MS EULA's tries to apply itself to the hardware. In the case of 99% of the hardware targeted by the clause of the GPLv3 you elucidate on, the "ability to install modified versions of the software" was *NOT* intended for that use, nor was it intended for *ANYONE* *EXCEPT* trained service personell to have *ACCESS* to that functionality. Arguing otherwise is just idiotic - I have never found a piece of "high tech" hardware (like a TiVO) that was designed for the end-user to modify. (yes, installing a new version of the linux kernel is "modifying" the system) > And, in the particular case of TiVo, it's a case of distributing > incomplete source code, of refraining from including functional > portions of the source code. And? They distribute the kernel source - as they recieved it - in compliance with the GPL. Their additions - whether they be "modules" or just the UI - do not, necessarily, fall under the GPL. (Yes, there have been discussions about whether a kernel module is a derived work, but most of the time those discussions ended "Legally they aren't, even though I feel they should be") > > In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it > > protects them. > > While you look at it from the point of view of TiVo, who wants to be > free to prohibit people from modifying the workings of the device it > sells while it can still modify it itself, and it does that in order > to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing > things they're legally entitled to do, I see a lot more prohibitions > than freedoms in what TiVo does. I don't understand why you'd stand > up for it. Is it more important that a single company be allowed to > impose prohibitions on others in order for its business model to work, > than to maintain the spirit of hacking and sharing that enabled Free > Software and Linux to flourish? What "Legally Entitled" things? And... You do realize that almost every difference between the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 is going to cause a hell of a lot of problems? The fact that the GPLv3 is designed to prevent things that RMS *PERSONALLY* finds distasteful - DRM and the like - is a big turn-off for a *LOT* of people. (Personally I don't like *ANY* version of the GPL, because there are chunks I have problems with) > Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that > stopped people from modifying Linux in them? But you aren't talking about a "computer" here. You're talking about a mass-market device that must comply with both US and International copyright law - and that's just a TiVO. Other devices have other laws they have to comply with - in the US the FCC's regulations control all radio devices, so if you upload a modified linux kernel to your wireless router that gives it a 2000 foot range, you've just broken the law *AND* violated the license on the hardware which states that you "won't modify it or the controlling software" - in most cases "the controlling software" is just the firmware, but with modern wireless hardware, the firmware is loaded by the OS. > > where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if > > those devices weren't licensed under the GPL". > > You're mistakenly focusing on the device. As you say, the device is > not under the license. But he isn't. The GPLv3 says, and I'll quote you here - "Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the device, you must tell the recipient how to do it." From the latest version of the GPLv3: "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. and: If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). So it's not just a designed in ability to run modified code - ie: running of modified code is a feature meant for the user to take advantage of - but even things like the connectors used to upload the operating software at the factory that people now cannot have in a device that runs GPL(v3) covered software unless they ship the related "Installation Information". In other words, companies are no longer allowed to have a completely separate license for hardware and software. That, to me, reads like RMS got mad about TiVO and said "I don't like it, lets add a clause making it wrong to the next GPL". Hell, that *IS* what happened, and nothing the FSF or Eben Moglen says will convince me otherwise. It's the same for the bits that were added after Novell signed their agreement with MS. > What's under the license is the software in it. And that license > spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the > software. And since when did they have to enable people to use their hardware in violation of the licensing agreement they implicitly agree to when opening the package? There is *NOTHING* stopping you from doing whatever you want with the code that runs on a TiVO (or any similar device). You (and everyone that thinks like you) are confusing a want to use the *HARDWARE* however you want with your GPL granted "right" to do what you want with the *SOFTWARE*. > > I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last > > six years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going > > on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes > > "protecting your freedom" is *anything*but*! > > Is this why you're overreacting? No, he's making a point. RMS and the FSF, in drafting GPLv3 to include the language and clauses it does, is "protecting your freedom" the way a lot of the post 9/11 changes to the US Federal code does it. (ie: by saying "no, you can't do that anymore") DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:38:05 -0300 On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [email blocked] wrote: > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on > their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* > covered by the GPL. Indeed, TiVO has this legal right. But then they must not use software under the GPLv3 in it. And, arguably, they must not use software under the GPLv2 either. > In the case of 99% of the hardware targeted by the clause of the GPLv3 you > elucidate on, the "ability to install modified versions of the software" was > *NOT* intended for that use, nor was it intended for *ANYONE* *EXCEPT* > trained service personell to have *ACCESS* to that functionality. Arguing > otherwise is just idiotic - I have never found a piece of "high tech" > hardware (like a TiVO) that was designed for the end-user to modify. (yes, > installing a new version of the linux kernel is "modifying" the system) It's about time for a change for better, wouldn't you think? In 95% of the desktop computers, you can't make changes to the OS that runs on it. Whom is this good for? > And? They distribute the kernel source - as they recieved it - in > compliance with the GPL. This makes it seem like you think that passing on the source code is enough to comply with the GPL. Check your assumptions. It's not. >> to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing >> things they're legally entitled to do > What "Legally Entitled" things? Time shifting of any shows, creating copies of shows for personal use, letting others do so. Think fair use, and how TiVO software and DRM in general gets in the way. > And... You do realize that almost every difference between the GPLv2 > and the GPLv3 is going to cause a hell of a lot of problems? For those who are not willing to abide by the spirit of the license, yes. Does it look like I'm concerned about them? If they're willing to look for and maybe even find holes in the license to disrespect users' freedoms, why should I worry about the problems that plugging these holes is going to cause them? If they'd taken the spirit of the GPL for what it is, instead of looking for loopholes, this improved wording wouldn't be causing them any problems whatsoever. > The fact that the GPLv3 is designed to prevent things that RMS > *PERSONALLY* finds distasteful - DRM and the like - is a big > turn-off for a *LOT* of people. This is a pretty sad accusation. 2/3s of the Free Software packages use the GPL with its existing spirit, and you still haven't shown that any changes proposed in GPLv3 fail to abide by the same spirit. That some (many?) people misunderstood or disregarded the spirit is an unfortunate fact, but trying to pose the patching that's going into GPLv3 as if it was a matter of personal taste, rather than improved compliance with the spirit, is unfair and uncalled for. > (Personally I don't like *ANY* version of the GPL, because there are > chunks I have problems with) What are you doing lurking and spreading confusion in a list about a project that chose to use it, then? >> Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that >> stopped people from modifying Linux in them? > But you aren't talking about a "computer" here. You're talking about > a mass-market device that must comply with both US and International > copyright law - and that's just a TiVO. Oh, sorry. I missed when the meaning of the word computer was narrowed from "machine with a general-purpose microprocessor, memory and other peripherals" to whatever you decide it is. And then, the GPL doesn't talk about computers at all. It's not about the hardware, it's about the software, remember? ;-) > if you upload a modified linux kernel to your wireless router that > gives it a 2000 foot range, you've just broken the law At which point, you get punished by the law system. > *AND* violated the license on the hardware which states that you > "won't modify it or the controlling software" Err.. The hardware licensor who includes software under the GPL be supposed to be a licensee of the software in order to have legal permission to distribute it, at which point the following provision kicks in: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program) [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. [...] And here's one of the rights granted herein that would be restricted by this hardware license: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, So such a restriction in the hardware license seems to be failure to comply with the GPL, which means the violator may lose the license. > even things like the connectors used to upload the operating > software at the factory that people now cannot have in a device that > runs GPL(v3) covered software unless they ship the related > "Installation Information". This sounds like a reasonable point. Please bring it up at gplv3.fsf.org. If it requires specialized hardware to modify the software in the device, the hardware manufacturer can't modify the software without cooperation from the user, and then perhaps it would be fair for the user to need cooperation from the manufacturer. > That, to me, reads like RMS got mad about TiVO and said "I don't > like it, lets add a clause making it wrong to the next GPL". Hell, > that *IS* what happened, and nothing the FSF or Eben Moglen says > will convince me otherwise. If you've already made your mind about this, in spite of not having the facts, I guess it doesn't make sense for me to waste my time trying to convince you, does it? >> What's under the license is the software in it. And that license >> spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the >> software. > And since when did they have to enable people to use their hardware in > violation of the licensing agreement they implicitly agree to when opening > the package? Since they got permission to distribute the software under the condition of passing on the freedoms without imposing further restrictions on their exercise. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Bernd Petrovitsch [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:37:55 +0200 On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [email blocked] wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on > > their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BTW as soon as I bought that thing, it is *my* hardware and no longer *theirs* (whoever "theirs" was). > > covered by the GPL. > > Indeed, TiVO has this legal right. But then they must not use Do they? At least in .at, it is usually impossible to (legally) limit the rights of the *owner* a (tangible) thing (and if I bought it, I *am* the owner and no one else) - even if you put it in the sales contract since this is discussion about/within sales law. One usual example is "you buy a car and neither the car producer nor the (re)seller can restrict the brands of the tires you may use or the brand of the fuel etc.". And the same holds for pretty much everything. No one can forbid you to open a TV set and fix it (or let it fix by whoever I choose to). Yes, there are exceptions in several laws for specific things (e.g. for really dangerous ones like airbags in cars) but in general, you are allowed to do almost anything (including the simple destruction of it). And yes, if you *rent* the thing, you are not the owner and this is a totally different thing. > software under the GPLv3 in it. And, arguably, they must not use > software under the GPLv2 either. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:13:18 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [email blocked] wrote: > > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on > > > their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > BTW as soon as I bought that thing, it is *my* hardware and no longer > *theirs* (whoever "theirs" was). You bought *their* design. It was your choice. And yes, you own the hardware, and you can hack it any which way you like (modulo laws and any other contracts you signed when you bought it). But they had the right to design it certain ways, and part of that design may be making it _harder_ for you to hack. For example, they may have used glue to put the thing together rather than standard phillips screws. Or poured resin over some of the chips. All of which has been done (not necessarily with Linux, but this really is an issue that has nothing to do with Linux per se). Making the firmware or hardware harder to access or modify is their choice. Your choice is whether you buy it, despite the fact that you know it's not necessarily all that easy to hack. > > Indeed, TiVO has this legal right. But then they must not use > > Do they? At least in .at, it is usually impossible to (legally) limit > the rights of the *owner* a (tangible) thing (and if I bought it, I *am* > the owner and no one else) - even if you put it in the sales contract > since this is discussion about/within sales law. The "when I buy it, I own it" argument is a favourite of the GPLv3 shills, but it's irrelevant. The *design* was done long before you bought it, and yes, Tivo had the right to design and build it, any which way they wanted to. > One usual example is "you buy a car and neither the car producer nor the > (re)seller can restrict the brands of the tires you may use or the brand > of the fuel etc.". > > And the same holds for pretty much everything. No one can forbid you to > open a TV set and fix it (or let it fix by whoever I choose to). You are missing the picture. Sure, you can do whatever you want to (within any applicable laws) _after_ you bought it. But that doesn't take away the right from the manufacturer to design it his way. And you're also *wrong*. Tivo doesn't limit the brands of electricity it uses or anything idiotic like that. You can put after-market rubber bumps on the thing to make it look sleeker, and I seriously doubt that Tivo will do aythign at all. It's about going into the innards, and different car manufacturers make that harder too, for various reasons. If the car manufacturer makes things harder to hack, it's your choice. For example, car hackers *do* actually prefer certain brands. Apparently the Subaru's are popular, and German cars are a pain to try to change. I'm told that even somethign as simple as upgrading the sound system is just _harder_ in a German car, apparently because they make things fit together so tightly, that doing after-market cabling is just much more of a problem. Same goes for things like electronic engine controls. Look it up. Try chipping a car lately? For some, it's literally buying a chip online, and some fairly simple work. For others, it's almost impossible, and you have to take your car in to somebody who really knows what he's doing. And you know what? Exactly like with a Tivo, the car manufacturer won't have anything to do with the car afterwards. If you broke it by chipping it, you voided your warranty. See? If you are actually looking for a car to hack on, you'd buy a car with that in mind. Do the exact same thing with your Tivo. Don't buy it if you want to hack it: buy a Neuros OSD device instead! I'm serious: the Neuros people do *not* limit you, and in fact they encourage hacking. Instead of whining about Tivo, do something *positive*, and support Neuros for their better policies! Linus
From: Kevin Fox [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:06:31 -0700 On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 20:42 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: <SNIP> > > > > Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer) > > from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR? > > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on > their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* > covered by the GPL. The hardware isn't directly covered by the GPL, correct. But, if they want to use the software on the hardware, they have to comply with the GPL. The software license can then influence hardware IF they want to use it badly enough. For example, the hardware is perfectly capable of being used to break the terms of the GPL by being used to distribute a modified binary without releasing the source. But the hardware's behavior is restricted by the software for the betterment of all. This whole argument is about the spirit of the GPL. Linus and others think the spirit is one thing, the FSF guys think its something else. Since the license is clearly owned by the FSF, I think they get the final vote on what they "intended" it to be when they wrote it, no? If they say they intended it to not allow Tivoization then believe them, because they are the only ones that know what they were thinking when they wrote it! The GPLv2 seems to allow it though. If Linus and friends want to allow it, then they can stay with the GPLv2. For those who want to disallow Tivoization, choose v3. No worries guys. > Do you understand that, or do I need to break out the finger-puppets next ? Guys, we are all friends here. No reason to be so insulting. Its just a difference of opinion. People seem to be talking past each other instead of to one another. This usually happens when people are basing their underlying assumptions on different things and not listening to the other. Please take a step back and think about it. <SNIP>
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:32:24 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kevin Fox wrote: > > The hardware isn't directly covered by the GPL, correct. But, if they > want to use the software on the hardware, they have to comply with the > GPL. Only with the GPLv3. Again, don't confuse the *new* requirements in the GPLv3 with any "GPL requirements". They didn't exist before. The kernel never signed up to them. They are irrelevant for the discussion. So hardware details have *nothing* to do with compying with the GPLv2. Could you write *another* license that puts limitations on the hardware or environment that you have to comply with? Sure can. And the GPLv3 does that. But the GPLv2 does not, and that's a fundmanetal *improvement* over the GPLv3 in my opinion. Do you like licenses that force the licensee to give money back? So why do you like licenses that force the licensee to give access to hardware back? It's a form of "extra compensation" that the GPLv2 never had. The GPLv2 talks about giving access to the *source* code. The GPLv3 talks about giving access to the *hardware*. Can people really not see the difference, and why I might think it's a fundamental difference, and why I might choose to say that the GPLv3 is a worse license? And *why* would I ever downgrade to a worse license? There had better be some really pressing reason to choose the worse version of the GPL. And I just don't find that reason in the GPLv3 itself - although, as mentioned, the reason could become *external* (ie I might accept a worse license it it comes with external code attached to it that I think makes up for the license deficiency). Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:07:44 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kevin Fox wrote: >> >> The hardware isn't directly covered by the GPL, correct. But, if they >> want to use the software on the hardware, they have to comply with the >> GPL. > Only with the GPLv3. This is not true. The terms of the GPLv2 that say you can't impose further restrictions on the exercise of the freedoms apply to the software under GPLv2 and GPLv3 just the same way. > Do you like licenses that force the licensee to give money back? > So why do you like licenses that force the licensee to give access to > hardware back? I don't know where the 'back' in the second question amounts to, but it definitely isn't about GPLv3. In fact, the GPL isn't about giving anything back. It's about passing on. So both requirements, as you phrased them, would be equally wrong. So let's change the question to turn them into forms of passing on: Do you like licenses that force the licensee to pass money on? Do you like licenses that force the licensee to pass on access to hardware? This is still bad. This is still not what the GPLv3 is about. There's no requirement to let the user go wild and do whatever she likes on the hardware. The only requirement is the one that was always there: to respect the freedoms of the users of the software, i.e., let them modify and share the software, not imposing any further restrictions, by whatever means. So the second question would be correctly phrased as Do you like licenses that force the licensee to pass on the right to modify the software in the hardware containing it? Or, reframing it: Do you like licenses that permit the licensee to deny others the right to modify the software in the hardware containing it? > It's a form of "extra compensation" that the GPLv2 never had. No, sir, it's still respect for the freedoms. The same "in kind" contribution as always. > The GPLv2 talks about giving access to the *source* code. It does. But that's not all. Even GPLv1 went further than that. > Can people really not see the difference, and why I might think it's a > fundamental difference, and why I might choose to say that the GPLv3 is a > worse license? Since someone brought liberal (Original BSD, Modified BSD, MIT, etc) licenses into the picture, and you expressed dislike for them, let me pick that up for a moment. > The license doesn't encode my fundamental beliefs of "fairness". I > think the BSD license encourages a "everybody for himself" > mentality, and doesn't encourage people to work together, and to > merge. And then you say what TiVO does is ok, saying: > Oh, but you want to hack the hardware to accept it? That's a totally > different issue. If so, buy a Neuros OSD box. Sounds a lot like the very "everybody for himself" attitude you dislike. So can you please explain to me how enabling TiVO to deny others the freedom that it received "in kind", failing to keep with the "in kind" spirit of the GPL, encourage people to work together, and to merge? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:03:58 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > Only with the GPLv3. > > This is not true. The terms of the GPLv2 that say you can't impose > further restrictions on the exercise of the freedoms apply to the > software under GPLv2 and GPLv3 just the same way. The GPLv2 talks *only* about the software. You're making everything else up, and when I point out that your reading of the GPLv2 is insane, you just ignore my proofs of your internal inconsistency. > So can you please explain to me how enabling TiVO to deny others the > freedom that it received "in kind", failing to keep with the "in kind" > spirit of the GPL, encourage people to work together, and to merge? Because Tivo *IS NOT DENYING* those freedoms. Tivo *respected* the freedoms, and gave source back, and gave you all the same rights you had to Linux originally, and to their modifications. How stupid are you to not acknowledge that? Tivo limited their *hardware*, not the software. Linus
From: Chris Adams [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:32:14 -0500 Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] said: > if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] > you must give the recipients all the rights that you have > >So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. > >TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. > >It doesn't give the recipients the same right. Sure it does; you received a program (the kernel) and you can modify it. You also received hardware; they don't support modification of that. Nowhere in the license does it say they have to, because the license only covers the program. Or are you claiming that putting software on hardware makes the result a derivative work? I think it falls under the "mere aggregation" clause. What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)? Would that also violate the "spirit" of the GPL? Must any device that wishes to include GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)?
From: Alan Cox [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:48:27 +0100 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 > What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a > flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)? Would that also > violate the "spirit" of the GPL? Must any device that wishes to include > GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code > (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)? This is an area the GPLv3 tries to clarify and for good reason. Of course these days in the US someone would probably sue arguing that a ROM is protection scheme ;) Alan
From: Alan Cox [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:52:48 +0100 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 > What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a > flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)? Would that also > violate the "spirit" of the GPL? Must any device that wishes to include > GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code > (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)? As a PS to the GPL3 comment here is the basic difference ROM - I can't modify the code on the device The creator can't modify the code further on the device Tivo - I can't modify the code on the device The owner can modify the code One is an implicit limitation of the hardware (just like I can't run openoffice on a 4MB PC even though the license gives me the right to try), the other is an artificial restriction. One case is witholding freedom in the GPL sense by one party while keeping it themselves, the other is a limitation of the system inevitably imposed on everyone.
From: Daniel Forrest [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:22:50 -0500 On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:52:48AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > As a PS to the GPL3 comment here is the basic difference > > ROM - I can't modify the code on the device > The creator can't modify the code further on the device > > Tivo - I can't modify the code on the device > The owner can modify the code > > One is an implicit limitation of the hardware (just like I can't run > openoffice on a 4MB PC even though the license gives me the right to > try), the other is an artificial restriction. > > One case is witholding freedom in the GPL sense by one party while > keeping it themselves, the other is a limitation of the system > inevitably imposed on everyone. I've been following this discussion and I find this interesting. Consider these two cases: 1.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they replace the ROM, and ship it back to me. 2.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they load new code into it, and ship it back to me. How do these two differ? Or is it now just a question of the ROM being in a socket? I can't see how the technicalities of how the hardware is constructed can change the legality of the software. -- Dan
From: Alan Cox [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:10:29 +0100 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 > I've been following this discussion and I find this interesting. > Consider these two cases: > > 1.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they replace the ROM, > and ship it back to me. > > 2.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they load new code > into it, and ship it back to me. > > How do these two differ? Or is it now just a question of the ROM Thats one thing I don't like about the GPL3 special casing. > being in a socket? I can't see how the technicalities of how the > hardware is constructed can change the legality of the software. In the replace/reflash the ROM case its about access to the righ tools - I could do it myself, send it to another company to load my code etc. In the Tivo case its about one company having the ability to make such mods and blocking others from doing so.
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:55:33 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. Stop right there. You seem to make the mistake to think that software is something physical. > TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. No. If you were logical (which you are not), you would admit that (a) physical property is very different from intellectual property (the FSF seems to admit that when it suits their needs, not otherwise) (b) They never modified "a copy" of Linux - they simply replaced it with "another copy" of Linux. The only thing that actually got *modified* was their hardware! The first copy didn't "morph" into a second copy. There was no "physical" software that was molded. They do need to follow the GPLv2, since clearly they _do_ distribute Linux, but you have all the same rights as they do with regard to the *software*. The fact that they maintained some control of the *hardware* (and some software they wrote too) they designed is _their_ choice. What Tivo did and do, is to distribute hardware that can *contain* a copy of Linux (or just about anything else, for that matter - again, there's a difference between physical and intellectual property). And their hardware (and firmware) will run some integrity checks on *whatever* copies of software they have. This is all totally outside Linux itself. Btw, according to your _insane_ notion of "a copy" of software, you can never distribute GPL'd software on a CD-ROM, since you've taken away the right of people to modify that CD-ROM by burning and fixating it. So according to your (obvously incorrect) reading of the GPLv2, every time Red Hat sends anybody a CD-ROM, they have restricted peoples right to modify the software on that CD-ROM bymaking it write-only. See? Your reading of the license doesn't _work_. Mine does. What I say is that when you distribute software, you don't distribute "a copy" of software, you distribute the _information_ about the software, so that others can take it and modify it. And notice? My reading of the license must be the correct one, since my reading actually makes sense, unlike yours. And yes, when Tivo distributes Linux, they give everybody else all the same rights they have - with respect to Linux! No, not with respect to their hardware, but that's a totally different thing, and if you cannot wrap your mind around the difference between "the software that is on a CD" and the "piece of plastic that is the CD", and see that when you replace "CD" with any other medium, the equation doesn't change, I don't know what to say. > It doesn't give the recipients the same right. > > Oops. > > Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me. Only if you extend the license to the *hardware*. Oops. Which it never did before. In other words, you basically try to change the rules. The GPLv2 clearly states that it's about software, not hardware. All the language you quoted talks about software. In other words, the only way to argue that I'm wrong is to try to twist the meanings of the words, and say that words only mean one specific thing that _you_ claim are their meaning. And I'm saying you act like Humpty Dumpty when you do. You can argue that way all you like, but your argument is nonsensical. It's akin to the argument that "God is perfect. Perfect implies existence. Therefore God exists". That kind of argument only works if you *define* the words to suit your argument. But it's a logical fallacy. And I'm saying that the GPLv2 can more straightforwardly be read the way I read it - to talk about software, and to realize that software is not "a copy", it's a more abstract thing. You get Linux when you buy a Tivo (or preferably - don't buy it, since you don't like it), and that means that they have to give you access to and control over the SOFTWARE. But nowhere in the GPL (in the preamble or anywhere else) does it talk about giving you control over the HARDWARE, and the only way you can twist the GPLv2 to say that is by trying to re-define what the words mean. And then you call *me* confused? After you yourself admitted that the FSF actually agrees with me, and that what Tivo did was not a license violation? Trust me, I'm not the confused person here. I'm perfectly fine with other people wanting to extend the license to cover the hardware, but I am *not* perfectly fine with people then trying to claim I'm confused just because I don't agree with them. Face it: the GPLv3 is a _new_ license. Making funamentally _different_ and _new_ restrictions that do not exist in the GPLv2, and do not exist in the preamble. Any language attempts to make it appear otherwise are just sophistry. And btw, just to make it clear: as far as I'm concerned, you can read the preamble and the word "freedom" and "rights" _your_ way. I'm not objecting to that at all. If you read it so that you think it's wrong to distribute GPL'd software on a CD-ROM, that's really not my problem. You do whatever you want to, and think the license means whatever you want to. What I'm objecting to is how you claim that anybody that doesn't follow your interpretation is "confused". When clearly even the FSF lawyers agree that my interpretation was _correct_, and I don't think your interpretation even makes sense! Linus
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:33:07 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the > license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd > like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the > earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so? No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a misunderstanding. Now it's been limited to "consumer devices" (after I pointed out some of the _obvious_ problems with the original language), and the only people who called anything a "misunderstanding" were the ones that tried to point to *other* points in the license altogether (ie there was also a "drm section", which didn't really seem to say anything much at all). Rms calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware. The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care. > Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of > two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or > preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the > former. No, it was not the former. And I think the whole "the kernel developers misunderstand the license" crap that the FSF was saying (several times) was very trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by pointing to *another* part of the license. And you're just parrotting their idiotic line. > Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never > agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2 > models better your intentions than GPLv3. And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I "misunderstood" the "spirit of the GPL". Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the license. I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't think so. > Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris > very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting > others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect > others' freedoms, has never been what moved you. Rather, you seem to > perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution, > rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires. In > fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago. I have said *exactly* that many many times. The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid. I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies) can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair. The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_ confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do. > In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it > didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms. That's a lot of bullshit. You are apparently the grand poobah, and can decide _which_ freedoms and for _what_ others' that matter. I respect peoples freedoms too. I just disagree with the FSF on what that slippery word means. The fact that you are unable to even apparently fathom this fundamental issue, and that the FSF thinks that they own the definition of "freedom" is _your_ problem. You're acting like some Alice-in-Wonderland character, saying that your definition of words is the only one that matter. And that others are "confused". Read up on your humpty-dumpty some day. I'm damn fed up with the FSF being the "protector of freedoms", and also feeling that they can define what those freedoms mean. The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what the words mean to suit their agenda. Linus
From: Alan Cox [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:57:43 +0100 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal interpretation. > The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what > the words mean to suit their agenda. Agreed - everyone contributed to the kernel based upon the GPLv2. Lots of different reasons, lots of different viewpoints about GPL2 v GPL3, DRM , Treacherous Computing, etc. The commonality is not political, not a grand plan, not a grand unified social agenda but a bunch of people for whom the GPLv2 was an acceptable license for furthering their intentions whether that is education for all, a shared commons or just making a quick buck Alan
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > > > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo > > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact > > Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal > interpretation. Well, even the FSF lawyers did, but one of the reasons I never wanted to do the copyright assignments(*) is exactly because I think people need to make their own judgments on what the GPLv2 means. In the end, the only thing that really matters is what a judge says (after appeals etc), and the fact is, any license will always have gray areas where people disagree about interpretation. And I actually am of the very firm opinion that a world with gray areas (and purple, and pink, and green) is a hell of a lot better than one where everything is black-and-white. Only lawyers want a black-and-white world. So I would actually *encourage* other people to sue over their GPLv2 interpretations, as they have done in Germany (and as IBM has done in the US). I'd sue based on _my_ reading of it, but hey, while my opinion is obviously always correct, I recognize that I live in a world where not everybody else always sees that. [ (*) Obviously, the *biggest* reason not to do copyright assignments is that they are just a total pain in the ass to do, and cause tons of totally pointless paperwork. So "Linus is lazy and not interested in being a lawyer" is obviously the primary reason for the lack of assignments. I'm just much happier with people owning their own code outright. ] Of course, I also realize that suing people over license violations is a big pain in the ass, and in that sense while I "encourage" people to assert their own copyrights, I would obviously also say that it's almost certainly not worth doing if it's in a "gray" area. But that, in the end, has to be the copyright owners own decision! > > The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what > > the words mean to suit their agenda. > > Agreed - everyone contributed to the kernel based upon the GPLv2. Lots of > different reasons, lots of different viewpoints about GPL2 v GPL3, DRM , > Treacherous Computing, etc. The commonality is not political, not a > grand plan, not a grand unified social agenda but a bunch of people for > whom the GPLv2 was an acceptable license for furthering their intentions > whether that is education for all, a shared commons or just making a > quick buck Indeed. And it's _fine_ to even be in it "just to make a quick buck". We do want all kinds of input. I think the community is much healthier having lots of different reasons for people wanting to be involved, rather than concentrating on just some specific reason. For some it's the technology. For some it's the license. For some it's just a thing to pass boredom. Others like to learn. Whatever. It's all good! Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:15:42 -0300 On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote: >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo >> > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal >> interpretation. > Well, even the FSF lawyers did, Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right, and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license. Only courts of law can do that. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Daniel Hazelton [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:46:15 -0400 On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because > >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The > >> > fact > >> > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal > >> interpretation. > > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did, > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would > prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right, > and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license. > Only courts of law can do that. Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did is entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what they *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever software they want on their hardware. They have that right - its the "Free Software Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. TiVO never stopped people from copying, modifying or distributing the code - what they did was say "The code is GPL'd, the hardware is restricted" - ie: "You can do what you want with the code, but you can only run compiled version of it that we provide on our hardware". Why is that legal? Because TiVO produces the hardware and sells it to you with a certain *LICENSE* - because it does contain hardware covered under any number of patents. That license grants you the right to use the patents - in this case algorithms - provided you comply with the terms of the license. (Just like the GPL gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute GPL'd code as long as you comply with its terms) If you believe otherwise then you are sadly mistaken. Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe. DRH PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting kicked out of the FSF-LA -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
From: Adrian Bunk [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:44:19 +0200 On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because > > >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The > > >> > fact > > >> > > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal > > >> interpretation. > > > > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did, > > > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would > > prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right, > > and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license. > > Only courts of law can do that. > > Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did is > entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what they > *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever software they > want on their hardware. They have that right - its the "Free Software > Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. >... The GPLv2 says: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." The question is whether this includes private keys. Different people have different opinions regarding this issue. If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2 requires them to give any costumer the private keys. Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully convince vendors that private keys are part of the source code if they are required for running the compiled binary on some hardware. AFAIK there haven't been any court rulings on this issue, and it could even be that courts in different countries will decide differently. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:09:26 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code > for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition > files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of > the executable." > > The question is whether this includes private keys. No. That's the question as the FSF would like to frame it. But the real fact is that it *not* the right question. You can install Linux on a Tivo all you like. Take out the harddisk, install your own version of Linux on it, and put it back in. That's pretty much how Tivo installs Linux on the things too, afaik, although they don't need to take the disk out (since they just assemble it). No magic needed. In fact, no keys needed. Now, maybe the hardware/firmware knows to expect a certain SHA1 on that disk, that's a different issue. Tivo could even tell you exactly what the SHA1 they are checking is. Maybe they have a list of SHA1's, and maybe they have a way to upgrade THEIR OWN FIRMWARE with new SHA1's, and they could still tell you all of them, and be very open. And you could actually replace their copy of Linux with another one. It would have to have the same SHA1 to actually start _running_, but that's the hardware's choice. See? No private keys needed. No magic install scripts. It really _is_ that easy. Of course, using private keys, and signing the image with them is possibly a technically more flexible/easier/more obvious way to do it, but in the end, do you really want to argue technical details? But I think the whole thing is totally misguided, because the fact is, the GPLv2 doesn't talk about "in place" or "on the same hardware". So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT! So by the idiotic logic of "modifying in place", I'm violating the GPLv2 every time I'm makign a release - because I make Linux available, but I don't actually give people the "same rights" to that particular copy that I have! Oh horrors of horrors! You need to make a _copy_ of the thing I distribute, and then you have the same rights I have to that _copy_, but you never had the same rights to the thing I actually distributed! And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a f*cking moron! You have the right to modify *copies* of the kernel I distribute, but you cannot actually modify the _actual_ entity that I made available! See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo distribution? The rights that the GPLv2 gives to "the software", is to something much bigger than "the particular copy of the software". Can people really not see the difference between "the software" and "a particular encoded copy of the software"? I'm sorry, but people who cannot see that difference are just stupid. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:36:12 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code >> for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition >> files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of >> the executable." >> >> The question is whether this includes private keys. > No. That's the question as the FSF would like to frame it. No. The FSF actually does *not* want to take this position. That's why it chose the formulation of Installation Instructions. It doesn't share my view that the keys needed to sign a binary in order for it to work are part of the source code. > And you could actually replace their copy of Linux with another one. It > would have to have the same SHA1 to actually start _running_, but that's > the hardware's choice. That's the hardware imposing a restriction on modification of the software. It doesn't matter how elaborate the excuse is to justify denying users' freedoms: it's against the spirit of the GPL, and the GPL will be amended as needed to plug such holes. > So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted > by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But > do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on > master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT! That's an interesting argument. People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about it. When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have a right to modify that copy. > And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating > the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a > f*cking moron! Agreed, except I'd probably use a lighter term. > See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo > distribution? Yes. You see how TiVO is different? It is modifyable, and I actually receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't. > The rights that the GPLv2 gives to "the software", is to something > much bigger than "the particular copy of the software". Indeed, it's something bigger. But this doesn't exclude the smaller things, does it? > Can people really not see the difference between "the software" and "a > particular encoded copy of the software"? There is a difference. But the GPL doesn't limit itself to the former. It explicitly talks about "copies". -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:34:22 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about > it. > > When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have > a right to modify that copy. Umm. I notice how you must have known how *idiotic* your response was, because you snipped away the part where I talked about Red Haty distributing CD-ROM's. In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), and you cannot modify that copy that you got. So the "right to make changes" _must_ be separate from the actual copy of the image. And don't get fooled by the "all the rights that you have". That _obviously_ and clearly talks about "the program", which in turn equally obviously and clearly has to be about something bigger than the "one copy", since the GPLv2 requires you have the right to change it. So you edited out the part where I talked about CD's. That's the proof that your reading is untenable, because obviously you cannot change the program on the CD: you got a copy, but the right to make modifications wasn't ON THAT HARDWARE. > > And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating > > the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a > > f*cking moron! > > Agreed, except I'd probably use a lighter term. Hey, I'm not exactly known for being polite. I tell it how I see it, and I tend to be pretty damn blunt about it. > > See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo > > distribution? > > Yes. You see how TiVO is different? It is modifyable, and I actually > receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't. You keep on harping on that "modifyable", but no-where in the GPLv2 is that an issue. I claim that it *cannot* be an issue, since CD's are obviously ok. So the "modifyable" part is a totally new thing to the GPLv3. You cannot use that as an argument that the GPLv3 didn't change things, that's a circular agument: "the GPLv3 says so, so thus the GPLv3 is in the same spirit as the GPLv2". Doesn't make sense. The fact is, the GPLv3 does fundamentally new things. Things I didn't sign up for (and things that nobody _else_ signed up for either) when I chose the GPLv2 for the kernel. The fact that some people would like to change the kernel license to GPLv3 is no different from the fact that some other people would like to cgange the kernel license to the BSD license. Those people who have argued for using the BSD license, btw, argued so in the name of "freedom". No different from you. Do you think they were right? If so, why the hell do you think _you_ are right? So here's what it fundamentally boils down to: - do you admit that the GPLv3 is a new license that does new and different things? - do you admit that I chose the GPLv2, and have argued that I chose it because I understood what it said? - do you admit that authors have the right to choose their own licenses? And here's the fundamental answer: - if you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you're either stupid (the first two questions) or a douche-bag (the third one) - if you answered "yes" to all the above questions, HOW THE HELL can you call me confused, and argue against me when I say that the GPLv2 is a better license? It wasn't your choice. It really is that easy. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:01:53 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about >> it. >> >> When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have >> a right to modify that copy. > Umm. I notice how you must have known how *idiotic* your response was, > because you snipped away the part where I talked about Red Haty > distributing CD-ROM's. > In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), > and you cannot modify that copy that you got. And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was quite obvious. >> > See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo >> > distribution? >> Yes. You see how TiVO is different? It is modifyable, and I actually >> receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't. > You keep on harping on that "modifyable", but no-where in the GPLv2 is > that an issue. I claim that it *cannot* be an issue, since CD's are > obviously ok. The 'passing on the rights you have' makes it an issue. > You cannot use that as an argument that the GPLv3 didn't change things, Compare the preambles of v2 and v3 and you'll understand why the argument is sound, and not circular. > Those people who have argued for using the BSD license, btw, argued so in > the name of "freedom". But individual freedom, rather than community freedom. Think local vs global optimization. > If so, why the hell do you think _you_ are right? Because, like you, I'm always right, even though not everyone agrees with that assessment? ;-P :-D > - do you admit that the GPLv3 is a new license that does new and > different things? Yes, of course. The new legal terms are answers to new threats to the freedoms depicted in the preamble, that didn't exist or hadn't been thought of by the time GPLv2 was published. > - do you admit that I chose the GPLv2, and have argued that I chose it > because I understood what it said? Yes. > - do you admit that authors have the right to choose their own licenses? Within the boundaries of ethics and morals, yes. > - if you answered "yes" to all the above questions, HOW THE HELL can you > call me confused, and argue against me when I say that the GPLv2 is a > better license? It wasn't your choice. The thing is I'm not arguing that point. I'm disputing that there was a change in the spirit of the license between v2 and v3. Heck, a mere 48 hours ago you couldn't even tell the spirit from the legal terms. I still think v3 will serve better any Free Software community, because it will push away the abusers that contribute little, or turn them into cooperative or at least harmless participants, that further enable the active participation of their downstream users. This would enable wider participation under the same 'tit-for-tat' conditions that you attribute to GPLv2. It appears to me that the only significant point of contention remaining is the issue of Tivoization. If you feel so strongly about permitting Tivoization, even though it denies the freedoms that the original spirit of the license you chose says they are entitled to have, you can make this provision by means of an additional permission for that, on top of GPLv3, and be done with it. > It really is that easy. Yes, indeed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:14:11 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), > > and you cannot modify that copy that you got. > > And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was quite obvious. That's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT! There is no language in the GPLv2 (only in the GPLv3 drafts) about "same upgradability as third parties". You're arguing a point that DOES NOT EXIST in the GPLv2. The GPLv2 talks about specific rights, like the ability to make changes and distribute things, and says that you have to give downstream all those same rights. And I've pointed out to you (now about five times) that those rights CANNOT be able "in-place", since even Red Hat does not actually give you the right to do in-place modification of the software they sell. > The 'passing on the rights you have' makes it an issue. No. It does not. I have extra rights as a copyright holder, and that "the rights you have" are as they pertain to the software under the GPLv2, not as it pertains to the physical device, or outside the GPLv2. For example, for any code that I have full copyright over, I have rights that you DO NOT HAVE! I have the right to re-license it under some other license. The fact that I pass on a copy of the software to you under the GPLv2 does *not* give you those rights, but that's not even what the GPLv2 asks for! The GPLv2, when it talks about "passing on the rights", talks about the rights you got *per*the*GPLv2*. Any other reading is nonsensical, since the copyrigth owner *always* has more rights than a licensee! I legally literally *couldn't* pass over all the rights I have to my software! If you read the GPLv2 as meaning that I have to, you are mis-reading it. It's that simple. Anyway, I'm not interested in continuing this flame war. The fact is, the license for the kernel is the GPLv2. And I think it's a superior license. As such, I'd be a total moron to relicense the kernel under what I believe is a worse license. So if you want to argue that I should re-license, you should argue that the GPLv3 is better. And quite frankly, you haven't. Linus
From: Adrian Bunk [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:20:34 +0200 On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0400, [email blocked] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said: > > > Reality check: > > > > Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys > > required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware. > > No, the *real* reality check: > > The operative words here are "convinced companies" - as opposed to "convinced > a judge to rule that private keys are required to be disclosed". (I just > checked around on gpl-violations.org, and I don't see any news items that say > they actually generated citable case law on the topic of keys...) > > Harald convinced companies that it was easier/cheaper/faster to provide the > private keys than to continue in a long legal battle with an uncertain outcome. > If the company estimates the total loss due to keys being released is US$100K, > but the costs of taking it to court are estimated at US$200K, it's obviously > a win (lesser loss, actually) for the company to just fold. >... Here in Germany, the rules at court are roughly "the loser pays everything including the costs of the winner", so if a big company is sure they will win at court there's no reason not to go there. And if they did the effort of using private keys to only allow running an official firmware, they must have seen an advantage from doing so. I'm not saying it legally clear the other way round, my statement was an answer to Daniel's emails claiming it was clear what such companies do was legal. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Here in Germany, the rules at court are roughly "the loser pays > everything including the costs of the winner", so if a big company is > sure they will win at court there's no reason not to go there. Well, the thing is (and I've said this before), a lawsuit is (and _should_ be) very much a last resort. I think that the Open Source community (and the FSF too) is much better off *not* concentrating so much on "legal rules" of what can and cannot be done, and instead spend much more effort on showing people why the whole "Open Source" thing actually works. And in fact, I think that's _exactly_ what Linux has been doing for the last decade! A lot of companies are actually doing the Right Thing (tm). Not because of anybody "forcing" them, but because they have literally bought into the whole "Open Source can do things better" mentality. In fact, the whole "coercive" approach is counter-productive. It makes people dislike you. It makes companies _resist_ open source, rather than see it as a potential ally. And no, I'm not speaking out of my *ss. Anybody who goes back fifteen years and looks at how the FSF was acting wrt the GPL (v2, back then), and how many friends - and enemies - they were making, should see that as a big clue. Linux really *did* change the landscape - for the better (*). By being much less contrary. So look at Intel in the open source space. They're doing well. Look at Sun. They aren't _forced_ to open-source, they see others open-sourcing, and they see that it works damn well. In the "Tivo space", look at Neuros. In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism that was - and still is - the FSF. The FSF always makes for this horrible "you're with us, or you're against us" black-and-white mentality, where there are "evil" companies (Tivo) and "good" companies (although I dunno if the FSF really sees anybody as truly "good"). I'd much rather just see "individuals" and "companies". They're not evil or good, they are all in it for their own reasons (and their reasons are *NOT* the same reasons they are for me, you, or anybody else), and we should show them that the whole "Open Source" approach really does work for them. It's totally pointless to try to "force" people to be good. That's like "curing" gay people. Not going to happen. Linus (*) Not just Linux, of course, but I do claim that this is actually an area where Linux was a big influence. Not the only one, but a major player.
From: Sean [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:14:09 -0400 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and > not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism > that was - and still is - the FSF. The FSF always makes for this horrible > "you're with us, or you're against us" black-and-white mentality, where > there are "evil" companies (Tivo) and "good" companies (although I dunno > if the FSF really sees anybody as truly "good"). Linus, If you really believe that then why didn't you choose a BSD license for Linux? You didn't say "completely free, no restrictions attached, people will follow because they'll see it's best, we just won't buy products that use Linux in a way with which we disagree". Instead you chose a license which enforced the so called tit-for-tat policy you think is fair. But people who prefer the BSD license may think you're a moron for forcing your political agenda (ie. tit-for-tat) on users of your code. The point of all that being, you _do_ believe in enforcing restrictions or you wouldn't like the GPL v2. So you draw the line of "fairness" and belief that people will do-the-right-thing somewhere short of the BSD license. Why is it so hard then to accept that the FSF draws the line short of the GPLv2 after having gained practical experience with it since its release? You can argue till the cows come home the belief that _your_ restrictions are more fair, moral and reasonable than theirs. But at the end of the day it's all just a matter of opinion about what constitutes fair and reasonable. You think its a fair trade that you get code back, the FSF think its fair that people can hack and run the code anywhere its used.. It all comes down to the author of the code getting to attach whatever restrictions they choose. Sean
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:36:08 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Sean wrote: > > If you really believe that then why didn't you choose a BSD license > for Linux? Because I think the GPLv2 is a great license. And I don't like the FSF's radical world-view, but I am able to separate the license (the GPLv2) from the author and source of the license (rms and the FSF). Why do people always confuse the two? The GPLv2 stands on its own. The fact that I disagree with the FSF on how to act has _zero_ relevance for my choice of license. The BSD license, as far as I'm concerned, is _horrible_ for any project I would use. I have actually released code under it, but never a "project". I've given some code of mine that I don't care about that much to the BSD projects, just because I didn't think that code really mattered, and I thought it would be stupid and small-minded not to let the BSD's use it. But for a project I actually care about, I would never choose the BSD license. The license doesn't encode my fundamental beliefs of "fairness". I think the BSD license encourages a "everybody for himself" mentality, and doesn't encourage people to work together, and to merge. Let me put this in source management terms, since I've also been working on a source control management project for the last few years: the BSD license encourages "branching", but the fact is, branching is not really all that interesting. What's interesting is "merging": the branching is just a largely irrelevant prerequisite to be able to merge. The GPLv2 encourages *merging*. Again, the right to "branch" needs to be there in order for merges to be possible, but the right to branch is actually much less important than the right to "merge". See? So I'm a *big* believer in the GPLv2. I think the GPLv2 is an almost perfect license. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with the FSF on everything else. > Instead you chose a license which enforced the so called tit-for-tat > policy you think is fair. But people who prefer the BSD license may > think you're a moron for forcing your political agenda (ie. tit-for-tat) > on users of your code. Oh, and some people did and do. And you know what? That's PERFECTLY OK! I think that the BSD license is wrong for me. Does that mean that people who choose the BSD license are wrong to do so? No. For *them* the choices that the BSD license makes may be the right ones! > The point of all that being, you _do_ believe in enforcing restrictions > or you wouldn't like the GPL v2. .. but I think that the software license I choose should be about the software, and about giving back in kind. And the GPLv2 is _perfect_ for that. And the GPLv3 is horrible. And you know what? YOU can choose the GPLv3 for your projects. I'm not saying anything else. I'm saying that no, I was _not_ confused when I chose the GPLv2. I thought it was a good license 15 years ago. I thought it was a good license 10 years ago. I thought it was a good license five years ago. And I think it's a good license today. Because it fundamnetally does what I think is fair. In a way that the GPLv3 DOES NOT. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:42:24 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > .. but I think that the software license I choose should be about the > software, and about giving back in kind. > And the GPLv2 is _perfect_ for that. > And the GPLv3 is horrible. Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements? Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'? (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've failed to elaborate on before) The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in, "I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must respect others' freedoms as well". Is this the "in kind" you're talking about? Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even GPLv2? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:03:26 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements? Do you need anything else? But if by the question you mean "would you think the GPLv3 is fine without the new language in section 6 about the 'consumer devices'", then the answer is that yes, I think that the current GPLv3 draft looks fine apart from that. > Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'? > (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've > failed to elaborate on before) I've *not* failed to elaborate on that before. Not at all. Just google for torvalds tit-for-tat and you'll see a lot of my previous postings. Trying to claim that this is somehow "new" is ludicrous. In fact, some of the google hits you find are from 2004, *loong* before the current GPLv3 discussion. So your "failed to elaborate" is not a failure on my side. Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code. How hard is that to accept? I don't ask for money. I don't ask for sexual favors. I don't ask for access to the hardware you design and sell. I just ask for the thing I gave you: source code that I can use myself. I really don't think my "tit-for-tat" or "give back in kind" is that hard to understand, is it? And no, it's not a new concept. Neither is the fact that I've never agreed with the FSF's agenda about "freedom" (as defined by _them_ - I have a notion of "freedom" myself, and the FSF doesn't get to define it for me). I don't call Linux "Free Software". I haven't called it that for close to ten years! Because I think the term "Open Source" is a lot better. > The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in, > "I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must > respect others' freedoms as well". Is this the "in kind" you're > talking about? Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even > GPLv2? I respect your freedom to design products around Linux. You can do whatever you damn well please - I just ask that you give the software back in a usable form. That's all I ask for. And that's all the GPLv2 asks for. Which is why I selected the GPLv2 in the first place, and why I *still* think the GPLv2 is a wonderful license! So I claim that the "freedoms" that the GPLv2 embodies are *greater* than the "freedoms" embodied in the GPLv3. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:46:36 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements? > Do you need anything else? No, I'm quite happy that this is all. > But if by the question you mean "would you think the GPLv3 is fine without > the new language in section 6 about the 'consumer devices'", then the > answer is that yes, I think that the current GPLv3 draft looks fine apart > from that. Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional permission for Tivoization? >> Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'? >> (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've >> failed to elaborate on before) > I've *not* failed to elaborate on that before. Not at all. > Just google for > torvalds tit-for-tat > and you'll see a lot of my previous postings. Trying to claim that this is > somehow "new" is ludicrous. I didn't. But I've provided evidence that your prior musings on this topic were wrong. I wanted to give you an opportunity to review your position under this new light. I see you haven't changed it at all. > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you > see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do > with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code. > How hard is that to accept? Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the GPL says. Where do you think the GPL say that you get the source code back? > I don't ask for money. I don't ask for sexual favors. I don't ask for > access to the hardware you design and sell. I just ask for the thing I > gave you: source code that I can use myself. See, that's not what the license says. The license says what you ask for is respect for other users' freedoms. Nothing whatsoever for you. Only for users. Freedom is in "in kind" payment, and it's not even a retribution, a payback: it's payforward, or paysideways. Do you understand why I find your reasoning hard to accept? > And no, it's not a new concept. Neither is the fact that I've never agreed > with the FSF's agenda about "freedom" (as defined by _them_ - I have a > notion of "freedom" myself, and the FSF doesn't get to define it for me). We don't have to agree on our individual definitions of freedom. But we're talking about a specific license that assigns a specific meaning to the term "freedoms", and that's all this is about. > I don't call Linux "Free Software". I haven't called it that for close to > ten years! Because I think the term "Open Source" is a lot better. I can appreciate that you think it's better, but unfortunately it appears to be playing a significant role in confusing your interpretation of the GPL. The GPL is not just about making the source code visible, or even modifyable by others. It's about respecting others' freedoms. No matter how badly you prefer Open Source over Free Software, how badly you'd rather disregard the freedoms in the spirit and in the legal terms of the GPL, you chose a license designed to protect those freedoms, not only the ability to see and modify source code. >> The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in, >> "I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must >> respect others' freedoms as well". Is this the "in kind" you're >> talking about? Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even >> GPLv2? > I just ask that you give the software back in a usable form. That's > all I ask for. I'm afraid that's not what the GPLv2 says. There's no provision whatsoever about giving anything back. Not in the spirit, not in the legal terms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional > permission for Tivoization? No. I'm not stupid. The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions. So anybody who does "GPLv3 + additional permissions" is basically setting himself up for people taking those permissions away. Since the Tivo kind of permission is in my opinion a *fundamental right* (or call if "freedom" if you want), then "GPLv3 + additional permissions" simply is not a viable alternative, since anybody could just decide to make improvements and strip those permissions. The whole notion of "additional permissions" in the GPLv3 is totally pointless, since it's legally *exactly* the same as allowing dual licensing (which a license doesn't even have to spell out: you can dual-license *regardless* of the license!). The reason for the "additional permissions" is just to make the LGPL go away, and become a sub-clause of the GPLv3. If you really thought anything else, you're just uninformed and stupid, and didn't think things through. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:06:02 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional >> permission for Tivoization? > No. I'm not stupid. > The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions. So what? You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt to remove them, and you'll keep TiVO happy. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:27:21 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > > > > No. I'm not stupid. > > > > The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions. > > So what? You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt > to remove them, and you'll keep TiVO happy. You really aren't thinking, are you? It's not about keeping Tivo happy. It's about keeping *me* happy. That's my primary (only) motivation for a license. And let's go back to why I selected the GPLv2 in the first place, shall we? I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge those improvements if I want to. Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT! By saying that I shouldn't accept contributions like that, you just INVALIDATED the whole point of the license in the first place! Can you really not see that? Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:01 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release > improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge > those improvements if I want to. Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the GPLv3? > Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT! By saying > that I shouldn't accept contributions like that, you just INVALIDATED the > whole point of the license in the first place! I understand. I assumed you had some trust that people would abide by your wish to permit TiVOization, and that authors of modifications were entitled to make "whatever restrictions they wanted" on their code. Pardon me if I think your position is at least somewhat incoherent. Can you help me make sense of it? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:52:02 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and > makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to > accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the > GPLv3? You *cannot* make GPLv3-only contributions to the kernel. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. You can take some of the code that is GPLv2+ in the kernel, and MOVE IT TO ANOTHER PROJECT, and use them there. But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel, the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is not compatible with v2. This is no different from the fact that we have some drivers that are GPLv2/BSD licensed. Within the kernel, they are GPLv2. But on their own, you can choose to use them under the BSD license, make your changes to them, and release them commercially. And correct - I cannot (and neither can anybody else) then accept those *non*GPLv2 changes back. > I understand. I assumed you had some trust that people would abide by > your wish to permit TiVOization, and that authors of modifications > were entitled to make "whatever restrictions they wanted" on their > code. Actually, normally I *do* have such a trust. It's why I have no problem with drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and in fact, I've told people that I don't want them to turn them into GPL-only, because that is simply not polite. But I hold *myself* to higher standards than I hold others. And in particular, when it comes to people with a religious agenda, I don't expect them to be polite or take my feelings into account. I expect (from good history) that people with a license agenda will consider the license agenda more important than any hurt feelings, or any wishes of mine. > Pardon me if I think your position is at least somewhat incoherent. > Can you help me make sense of it? I'm giving up. I'm moving you to my "flamers" list, so that your emails go to a separate mailbox that I read weekly. I've wasted too much time with you, your arguments don't make sense, and you seem to refuse to even _try_ to understand my position, or respect the fact that my choice of license is MY choice, and that I actually have a brain of my own. Linus
From: Adrian Bunk [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:15:04 +0200 On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:01:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > Here in Germany, the rules at court are roughly "the loser pays > > everything including the costs of the winner", so if a big company is > > sure they will win at court there's no reason not to go there. > > Well, the thing is (and I've said this before), a lawsuit is (and _should_ > be) very much a last resort. > > I think that the Open Source community (and the FSF too) is much better > off *not* concentrating so much on "legal rules" of what can and cannot be > done, and instead spend much more effort on showing people why the whole > "Open Source" thing actually works. I'm wondering more and more why you choose the GPL and not the BSD licence for the Linux kernel... Companies are violating the GPL and this only works as long as noone starts taking legal actions against them. And taking legal actions easily takes all of your fortune at risk. > And in fact, I think that's _exactly_ what Linux has been doing for the > last decade! > > A lot of companies are actually doing the Right Thing (tm). > > Not because of anybody "forcing" them, but because they have literally > bought into the whole "Open Source can do things better" mentality. And there are some companies for whom it's better if they can take the open source code and turn it into some closed thing. There's a reason why TiVo warned it's investors that the GPLv3 might hurt their business. > In fact, the whole "coercive" approach is counter-productive. It makes > people dislike you. It makes companies _resist_ open source, rather than > see it as a potential ally. And what are the risk of your allies actions? Consider e.g. that your ally AMD offers legally questionable non-GPL modules and Debian shipping binaries. If one of the many copyright holders of the kernel wants to take legal actions against this suing AMD might simply be out of reach due to financial reasons. But legal actions against the maintainers of ftp.<your_country>.debian.org distributing binaries of these legally questionable modules have a good chance of success. The legal risks might not be a problem for a big company like AMD, but anyone seeking an easy legal win will _naturally_ attack mirrors. And considering the lucratice "cease and desist letter" business in Germany, it really seems to be only a matter of time until mirrors will have to pay (the lawyer costs of the ones sending the cease and desist letters) for the actions of your "allies". > And no, I'm not speaking out of my *ss. Anybody who goes back fifteen > years and looks at how the FSF was acting wrt the GPL (v2, back then), and > how many friends - and enemies - they were making, should see that as a > big clue. Linux really *did* change the landscape - for the better (*). By > being much less contrary. > > So look at Intel in the open source space. They're doing well. Look at > Sun. They aren't _forced_ to open-source, they see others open-sourcing, > and they see that it works damn well. Look at AMD. Look at NVIDIA. Will they ever switch from providing illegal modules to open source? > In the "Tivo space", look at Neuros. > > In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and > not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism > that was - and still is - the FSF. The FSF always makes for this horrible > "you're with us, or you're against us" black-and-white mentality, where > there are "evil" companies (Tivo) and "good" companies (although I dunno > if the FSF really sees anybody as truly "good"). > > I'd much rather just see "individuals" and "companies". They're not evil > or good, they are all in it for their own reasons (and their reasons are > *NOT* the same reasons they are for me, you, or anybody else), and we > should show them that the whole "Open Source" approach really does work > for them. >... Until someone starts to attack ftp mirrors and other people distributing the questionable code. There are so many copyright holders of the Linux kernel (including e.g. the former Caldera), and if someone wants to spread fear among Linux users legal actions against people maintaining ftp mirrors or selling their old Linux distribution at ebay will be the cheap and effective way to achieve this goal. > Linus >... cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:44:25 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I'm wondering more and more why you choose the GPL and not the BSD > licence for the Linux kernel... Why do people confuse "anti-GPLv3" with "pro-BSD"? What's the logic? The BSD license is not doing tit-for-tat. It doesn't give me anything back. I don't believe in that kind of model. So I'd not use it for my projects. The GPLv2 has a good balance. It encourages tit-for-tat, and it makes sure that the software is kept free. And it doesn't try to force anything else, or play politics. The only thing you have to believe in is "tit-for-tat". The GPLv3 goes too far. It's no longer "tit-for-tat", it's "our software is worth _soo_ much, that we want to force you to behave well, or you cannot use it". I think one of the above licenses are good. The fact that I reject the GPLv3 in _no_ way implies that I should like the BSD license. Both the BSD license and the GPLv3 are flawed - they are just flawed in fundamentally different ways. So the whole question of "why don't you use he BSD license then" is just fundamentally bogus. A license is about a *balance* of things. "Fairness" is not about laissez-faire (BSD) or about total-control (GPLv3). To me, It's about something in the middle, where people give back in kind. And btw, that "to me" is important. Different people have different opinions. That's _fine_. Use the GPLv3 for your projects. Go wild. Use the BSD license. It's your choice. But by the same token, it was _my_ choice (and it was an informed choice) to use the GPLv2. And to then come in fifteen years later and call me "confused" about a license I've chosen is a damn affront to me. I'm not confused. Somebody else may be, but it's not me. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:49:19 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > In fact, the whole "coercive" approach is counter-productive. Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes restrictions, that's ok, but when others want to find ways to stop it, then it's not. *Now* I'm confused ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes > restrictions, that's ok Sure. I think it's ok that Microsoft imposes restrictions too on the software they create. It's *their* choice. And I think it's ok for you to impose any restrictions (including the ones in GPLv3) on the software *you* produce. It's your choice. > but when others want to find ways to stop it, then it's not. *Now* I'm > confused ;-) You are indeed totally confused. It's *ok* to impose restrictions on the stuff you create. Everybody has a different world-view, and for some it's about making money, for some it's about something else, and some don't want any restrictions at all. For me, the GPLv2 was the license I liked. I didn't like the BSD license, so I didn't choose it. I don't like a license that restricts hardware, so I didn't choose that. And I *still* don't choose that. See? I think the GPLv3 is a *much* inferior license to the GPLv2. It's better than its drafts were, but it's still doing things I disagree with. So tell me, why do you think I'm confused about the GPLv3? Why do you think I should have said "GPLv2 or anything else the FSF comes up with"? So the only thing I want you to say is: (a) Linus knows what he is doing, and isn't actually confused. and (b) It was my right to use the license of my choice for a project that I started. and (c) I have the right to see the difference between the GPLv2 and v3, and think that the GPLv3 is the inferior license. Comprende? MY CHOICE. Not the FSF's. Not yours. Not anybody elses. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:23:41 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes >> restrictions, that's ok > Sure. I think it's ok that Microsoft imposes restrictions too on the > software they create. It's *their* choice. Last I looked, TiVO was not the author of Linux. Did you sell out or something? ;-P :-D > So tell me, why do you think I'm confused about the GPLv3? I think you're confused about the spirit of the GPL, that applies equally to v1, v2 and v3. I think you're confused because you claim the GPL is tit-for-tat, that it encourages/requires (you haven't been consistent) contributions in kind, but the only contribution in kind is respect for the freedoms of others. But then, when measures are introduced to ensure compliance with this twisted tit-for-tat notion, you claim they're wrong, that they escape the spirit of the license. This is why I think you're confused. That said, it is possible that you disregarded the spirit of the GPL entirely, focused on some of the legal terms and decided that was something you wanted for your project. And that it models what you want for your project better than GPLv3 does, because GPLv3 takes the spirit that you disregarded even more seriously than GPLv2. I still fail to see why what it is in GPLv2 that makes it better to satisfy your intentions WRT Linux than GPLv3. I must assume that, when you say "tit-for-tat", you mean something else, and not respect for others' freedoms. If you take the time to explain what it is, then perhaps it will become clear why you consider the GPLv2 a better license to achieve your goals, or perhaps it will show that you're indeed confused about what GPLv2 and GPLv3 mean. > (a) Linus knows what he is doing, and isn't actually confused. I can't say that yet. Maybe after the points above are sufficiently explored I will be able to say that. > (b) It was my right to use the license of my choice for a project that I > started. No doubt about it. > (c) I have the right to see the difference between the GPLv2 and v3, and > think that the GPLv3 is the inferior license. You sure do have that right. > Comprende? MY CHOICE. Not the FSF's. Not yours. Not anybody elses. Until you started accepting contributions from others, yes. BTW, in Portuguese the correct spelling would be "compreende", with a double 'e'. "Comprende" is Spanish, and in Brazil, where I live, we speak Portuguese. But thanks for trying, that's appreciated ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:09:46 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Last I looked, TiVO was not the author of Linux. Did you sell out or > something? ;-P :-D You're a moron. I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux. Tivo accepted that, and followed the GPLv2. Even the FSF lawyers agreed that they followed it. But Tivo *is* the "author" of their own proprietary applications, and it *is* the designer of their hardware. And exactly like I had the right to the choice of license when it comes to Linux, they have the right of choice to license and behaviour when it comes to *their* software and hardware (that is not a derived work of Linux). But you cannot follow a coherent argument, because you dont' *want* to follow it. Because following the logical argument would take you to a place where you don't want to be. I'm not going to bother discussing this any more. You don't seem to respect my right to choose the license for my own code. So one final time: - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of situation is ok. - the FSF lawyers too have acknowledged that what Tivo did was not a license violation, so I obviously am not confused about the issue: YOU are. - I think that what Tivo did was not only "technically valid" by the license, it was what I *intended* by my choice of license! And you are apparently totally unable to understand - or respect - that I actually made an informed decision that happens to be different from what you *wish* it were. Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:54:10 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of > situation is ok. Wow, do you remember the date when you first thought of this business model? > And you are apparently totally unable to understand - or respect - that I > actually made an informed decision that happens to be different from what > you *wish* it were. While you insist in the nonsensical tit-for-tat argument and "in kind" retributions, I don't think I have much of a choice, because this is not what the GPL is about, this is not what it requires of licensees. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:23:38 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > > > - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of > > situation is ok. > > Wow, do you remember the date when you first thought of this business > model? You know what? I'm intelligent. That's what you call people who see th consequences of their actions. I didn't see the *details* of what all the GPLv2 could result in, but yes, I claim that I knew what I was setting myself up for (in a license way) pretty much from the beginning. Did it take me by surprise how people actually ended up using Linux? It sure did. But has the GPLv2 itself ever surprised me? Not really. I read it back then, and yes, I understood what it meant. From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. That was the first license, but more importantly, it was why I started Linux in the first place - my frustrations with Minix, and my memories of how painful it was to find an OS that I wanted to use and work with. (That, btw, was not Minix-only: I actually originally was thinking about literally buying a commercial Unix for my PC too. The price factor kept me away from the commercial unixes, and in retrospect I'm obviously very happy). So my first goal was "source must be available and it must be free (as in beer)". Which my first copyright license reflects very directly. What happened a few months into the thing was that some people actually wanted to make floppy images of Linux available to Linux users groups, but they didn't want to have to actually *fund* the floppies and their work themselves, so they wanted to sell them at cost (which the first license actually didn't allow!). And I realized that the money angle really wasn't what I ever really cared about. I cared about availability, but people sure could get paid for their effort in distributing the thing, as long as the source code remained open. I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the improvements back. So given that background, which license do you _think_ I should have chosen? And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than the GPLv3? I don't care about the hardware. I'll use it, but it's not what Linux is all about. Linux is about something much bigger than any individual device. And yeah, maybe I'm just better at abstracting things. Maybe I prefer seeing the big picture, and that the individual devices don't matter. What matters is the improvement in the *software*, because while each physical device is a one-off thing, in the long term, it's the *development* that matters. And the GPLv2 protects that. It's a bit like evolution: individual organisms matter to *themselves* and to their immediate neighborhood, but in the end, the individuals will be gone and forgotten, and what remains is the development. In those terms, I care about the DNA, and the *process* or recombination and the bigger picture. Any individual organism? Not so much. It's all part of a much bigger tapestry, and closed hardware is more like an eunuch (or a worker bee): it won't pass on its legacy, but it might help the people who do. So instead of thinking of Tivo as something "evil", I think of Tivo as the working bee who will never pass on its genes, but it actually ended up helping the people who *do* pass on their genes: the kernel (to a small degree - not so much because of the patches themselves, as the *mindshare* in the PVR space) and projects like MythTV (again, not so much because of any patches, but because it helped grow peoples understanding of the problem space!). Let's take another example: BitKeeper. The FSF follower people seem to view BitKeeper as something "evil". To me, BitKeeper was not just a great tool, but it also ended up being something that showed others how things *could* be done. And the world - including the open source world - is a better place for it! See? In the big picture, individual devices and even projects won't matter. In a hundred years, I'll be long dead, and nobody will care. But in a hundred years, I hope that the "live and let live" open source mentality will still flourish, and maybe "Linux" itself won't live on, but some of the memories and impact may. And *that* is what matters. A Tivo? It's just a toy. Who cares? It's not important. But source code that evolves? THAT can change the world! Linus
From: Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:31:52 -0300 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the > improvements back. GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. > So given that background, which license do you _think_ I should have > chosen? I can't morally recommend a non-Free Software license. > And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than > the GPLv3? No. Honestly, I really don't. Even when I try and look at it from your perspective, that you described very beautifully in the rest of the message that I snipped, it's still a mistery to me why you think permitting Tivoization could possibly be advantageous to your project. What is it in the anti-Tivoization provision that gets you any less improvements back? If anything, I'd think that, by not permitting TiVO to prohibit users from running modified versions of your code that they don't authorize themselves, these users would do *more* than TiVO alone ever could, and if a fraction of them contributes something back, you're way better off. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [email blocked] wrote: > > > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the > > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. > > Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. Why do you bother sending out emails that just show that you cannot read or understand? I want not just the code *I* write to be freely available. I want the modifications that others release that are based on my code to be freely available too! That's what the whole "tit-for-tat" thing was all about! Doyou even understand what "tit-for-tat" means? Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years. > > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the > > improvements back. > > GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. > > It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the > benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. You are living in some alternate world. The GPLv2 gives me exactly what I looked for. Yes, people can do improvements in private, and by keeping them private they'll never need to release them to anybody else. Big deal. I don't care. By keeping them private, I never see the end result anyway, so they "don't exist" as far as I'm concerned. > > And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than > > the GPLv3? > > No. Honestly, I really don't. Yeah. So stop bothering me then. Go cry on somebody elses shoulder. Just accept the fact that I'm a grown person, in full control of my faculties, and that I'm perfectly able to make my own judgements, and that I don't need to follow the FSF blindly. And it doesn't even matter if you don't understand me. That is, as I've said, _your_ problem. I've done my best to explain to you, but if you are so limited that you cannot understand that other people have other opinions than yours, there really is only so much I can do for you. Go away. Linus
From: Diego Calleja [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:47:25 +0200 El Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:49:19 -0300, Alexandre Oliva [email blocked] escribió: > Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes > restrictions, that's ok, but when others want to find ways to stop it, > then it's not. *Now* I'm confused ;-) Me, I agree that hardware shouldn't lock users. And since I'm one of those evil european socialdemocrats, I may go as far as to think that there should be laws that *forbid* selling such hardware. But I think that all this iss a *hardware* issue. It seems to me that lot of people at the FSF wants to regulate the hardware industry using the influence of free/open software in the computing industry and the "V2 or later" phrase from the GPL. But the fact is that free/open source runs on _top_ of hardware. You don't control hardware, you only control the things that are built on top of your software, not the parts you use to build your software. And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of hardware throught the influence of their software. And I think it's wrong. I'm all to forbid hardware that imposes restrictions on hardware, but software licenses are NOT the way to make it. That's a task for a "Free Hardware Foundation", not the FSF. What the FSF is trying to do is EVIL. It's not about free software, it's not about freedom, it's about the FSF trying to have to much control over things that they shouldn't even try to control. I think that the FSF can do a terrible damage to free/open source with such stupid ideas. I wouldn't even be surprised that some jugde rules that a software license that tries to 'control' hardware is invalid
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:13:31 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote: > > And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of hardware throught > the influence of their software. And I think it's wrong. I'm all to forbid hardware > that imposes restrictions on hardware, but software licenses are NOT the way > to make it. That's a task for a "Free Hardware Foundation", not the FSF. Amen. And btw, opencores.org does actually exist. I don't even think open hardware is a big issue: the worry-warts about hardware are likely wrong, and hardware today is a lot more open than it used to be even just a decade ago. You can much more easily design your own (FPGA's are cheap and powerful), and yes, it's more complex today, but that's actually an argument _for_ openness rather than against it (open processes work better in complex environments!). The real issue is "open content", and we do actually have various organizations that support that in particular. I would heartily encourage people to get involved with the Creative Commons, and the EFF, and I think Larry Lessig is a really smart and articulate person, who you should listen to. > What the FSF is trying to do is EVIL. I wouldn't go that far (although, in the heat of the moment I probably _have_ gone that far. Oops ;). I don't think the FSF is evil. They're just too single-minded, and look too much at one issue, and only care about the one thing they care about, and in the process, they tend to have a really hard time seeing the other side of the coin. They define "freedom" one way, and by defining it in a very particular way, they miss the fact that what is "freedom" to them is not "freedom" to somebody else. They have a very particular agenda, and in having that agenda and a very strict view of how the world should look (according to the FSF), they dismiss the fact that other people have _other_ agenda's, and see the same world totally differently. And I think that kind of single-mindedness is silly and counter-productive. I literally think that the GPLv2 has worked so well exactly because you can strip it of its high-falutin' morality and the FSF Kool-Aid, and just see it as a "tit-for-tat" license. It allows everybody to see that the work they put in (into the _software_) is protected, and people cannot make improved versions of that software and distribute those improved versions without giving you the right back to use those improvements (to the _software_). So the GPLv2 may have come out of a very single-minded endeavor, but I think it ended up being capable of so much more than rms really even envisioned, exactly because you don't have to _view_ it in that manner. Linus
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:19:57 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without > achieving any of my goals. What do you expect, when you tried to entertain a legal picture of the GPLv2 that even the FSF counsel doesn't believe in? I will state one more time: I think that what Tivo did was and is: (a) perfectly legal wrt the GPLv2 (and I have shown multiple times why your arguments don't hold logical water - if you actually followed them yourself, you wouldn't be using a redhat.com email address!) (b) not just legally right, but perfectly morally right too (it wasn't some underhanded "trick" thing - it was following the spirit _and_ the letter of the law) (c) the only reasonable thing many companies *can* do in the face of laws and regulations and entities like the RIAA/MPAA. and you should admit that the fact that the FSF counsel says that it couldn't sue Tivo in the US, it means that while my standpoint may not be the _only_ possible one, I'm certainly not "confused" about (a) above. The (b) and (c) points are not "legal" points, they are about the fact that quite often, morality and practicality are independent of legality, and you should never see law as being the *only* thing that matters. So the reason I bring them up is that it wasn't just "legally ok", they also had good *reasons* for doing it, and there was no hanky-panky about it! In fact, I consider Tivo one of the good guys, because they were one of the few people that had things like the GPLv2 actually printed out and clearly stated IN THE MAIN PAPER MANUAL. In the very first version of their box. Without anybody twisting any arms at all. IOW, Tivo really did everything right. I personally think that they were even classy about it. And that's my opinion. THINK about that for a moment. THINK about the fact that I am the original copyright holder in the main software project they used, and that I state that as neither having ever gotten paid _or_ owning any stock what-so-ever in Tivo. Dammit, if I cannot say that I think what they did was fine, who can? So pause there for a moment, and really *think* about the above. Stop seeing Tivo as "the devil". [ Wait a few seconds here, thinking! ] Now, we both agree that GPLv3 would change the situation wrt Tivo, don't we? [ Wait a few more seconds here, thinking about what that means, taking the above into consideration ] ..so given that I think that what Tivo did is *fine*, the GPLv3 "solution" is not a solution at all, is it? Quite the reverse. It's a unnecessary restriction that doesn't actually solve anything at all, it just adds problems of its own. And yet you claim that you cannot understand why I (and others) would consider the GPLv3 to be a "worse" license. It is *obviously* worse to anybody who thought that "Tivoization" wasn't a problem in the first place! .. but I guess you'll ignore that argument, the way you ignored all the other ones too, and continue to blame your lack of understanding on me being "confused" about the issue. Linus
free software vs open source
or call it "spirit of the license vs literal legal wording".
wow, that was a good read. though long, i think i fully understand both sides now. thanks, jeremy!
here's my chronological understanding (with a general elaboration following):
the problem:
it's the age-old "free software vs open source" debate. one is highly philosophical, the other very pragmatic. one is communistic (all software free for all people), one is capitalistic (tit-for-tat). one side wonders why Linus uses a license at all if he truly believes "open source" pragmatism will win out, where the other wonders why the FSF is so opinionated about "free software" in their licenses.
the GPL tries to capture and enforce the beliefs of RMS and FSF. but just as a physical, tangible biography (or even autobiography) cannot capture the spirit of a person, GPLv2 in its physical, tangible wording did not capture the spirit of the FSF, specifically in regard to future advancements. so GPLv3 was born to further the "free software" cause in today's environment, and Linus disagrees with it. that would be fine, but Linus is the posterboy for FOSS (free AND open source software) and we can't have the appearance of division in the face of non-free & closed source competition. so one side badmouths the other, and the other perpetuates the argument.
one thing to keep in mind is what shaped (to some degree) RMS's ideas of "freedom": the inability to modify a printer driver. maybe if back then RMS had been given the source code, but due to DRM (which cryptographically verifying object code before execution is) was unable to use it, then GPLv2 would have better expressed RMS's ideas of "freedom" and conflicted with Linus' "open" ideas.
"can't we all just get along?" ;-)
Linus -- when will Reiser4 be added to the kernel.
Linus -- when will Reiser4 be added to the mainstream kernel.
It seems you are keeping us from a great product,... why?
Read here to find out why Reiser4...
Read here to find out why Reiser4 is not in the Linux kernel:
http://linux.50webs.org/installs/install-on-reiser4.htm
The Spirit of the GPL hasn't changed?
> the problem:
> * Linus says that the spirit of the GPL has changed, when it hasn't;
> only the literal wording has changed to account for unforeseen industry changes
I can't quite agree with this analysis. My take is as follows:
- The spirit of the FSF hasn't changed
- The spirit of rms hasn't changed
- The spirit of the GPL HAS changed
The reason I say this is that the GPL has been used by many, many, programmers (Linus and at the other end of the spectrum, me, included). Linus choice of the GPLv2 was based on what the GPLv2 itself said.
I'm pro GPLv2, I think it strikes an excellent balance. However, I'm only pro GPLv2 in that it exists in an "ecology" of other available licence types.
As a programmer facing a given project, I believe I should have the FREEDOM to choose between:
- Writing from scratch and licencing in a "closed" manner
- Writing from scratch and licencing under GPLv2
- Writing from scratch and licencing under GPLv3
- Writing from scratch and licencing under any other licence I choose
- Taking an existing closed product, and agreeing to a proprietary co-development licence
- Take an existing GPLv2 product, and develop it, and accepting the constraints placed upon me by so doing
- Take an existing GPLv3 product, and develop it, and accepting the constraints placed upon me by so doing
- Taking an existing product under another type of licence, and accepting the constraints placed upon me by so doing
Call it "Pro Programmer Freedom", rather than "Pro Code Freedom" if you like.
M
DFSG?
Reading through all this, it has occurred to me to wonder if possibly "non-user-modifiable devices" might count as a "Field of Endeavor" in DFSG. That could be... interesting.
This kind of religious war is what you get
when you believe in things that aren't real, but are only mechanisms for controlling other people's behavior to one's own (perceived) benefit (and even that is incorrect, since in most cases in the long run it acts against everyone's benefit.)
Like "rights".
Like "law".
Like "the state."
Lawrence Lessig is really not that bright. He is fighting the IP battle with both hands tied behind him. Because he believes in the basic notion of "intellectual property". As does everyone else here.
And IP is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist as an economic entity except in the form of coercive laws and regulations enacted for the benefit of certain parties and to the detriment of the species as a whole. If humans had the ability to really think long term, and if humans were not consumed with fear of the future all the time, intellectual property would be totally irrelevant to them. Everything would be "open source".
Some might argue that given humans as they are, these sorts of concepts are necessary. On the one hand, I tend to agree that there is no changing humans as they are (there is such a thing as transcending them as they are, however.) On the other hand, this amounts to little more than an excuse for making more mistakes to cover the mistakes already made.
This is typical human behavior. Make a mistake, refuse to acknowledge it as a mistake (because that would entail making oneself "wrong" rather than "right" - and that can't be allowed in human primate psychology), then make other mistakes in an attempt to correct the problem caused by the first mistake. We end up with a chain of mistakes until the entire edifice collapses and is then rebuilt - probably by starting yet another, more fundamental mistake. And the cycle continues.
The GPLv3 certainly seems to be a mistake made to cover previous mistakes - like GPLv2.
The FSF wants people to "respect other people's freedoms".
Linus wants people to engage in "tit-for-tat" behavior in software development.
I submit that the licenses don't do anything to encourage either behavior. The behavior of the parties is influenced by the beliefs the parties hold and the communities they are influenced by. Neither of those is particularly affected by the license to any significant degree. Oh, some companies will obey the GPLv2 whereas they might not have bothered before. But in the end it is their belief that this will benefit them more than not that causes them to do so - not the license itself. A few companies might be informed by their legal department that not to obey the GPLv2 would subject them to possible lawsuit, and therefore it is cheaper to obey it than not. In the end, there's no evidence this is going to influence the overall development of software under that GPL version. The same applies to GPLv3.
The entire argument is a tempest in a teapot.
I suggest everyone get back to designing and coding.
Eye-Pee
Copyright has been around for ... oh ... maybe over 400 years now. Around Shakespeare's era some people made their money printing (actually, writing) 'folios'. These were obvious copies of someone else's ideas and a number of playwrights and authors have argued that it harms their income and harms their reputation (folios were not accurate copies of the text of the play/book/whatever).
Patent law did not appear until the Industrial Revolution. There was a serious problem to address there - someone spends 20 years inventing and refining, say, a steam engine. Someone else steals the plans or buys an engine and reverse engineers it. The engine is then duplicated by competent artisans and competes in the market with the original engine which took so much time and effort to build. It's hard to find someone who won't agree that this is an unfair situation. So, in comes Patent law.
Copyright is still important today, but the laws are getting absurd and in fact contravene the original intent of copyright. For example, the "Mickey Mouse Act" rules that Mickey Mouse will not become public domain until - what - 150 years after Walt Disney's demise? Your grandkids may see the "Mickey Mouse Act 2".
Patents are still vital for machinery and have some relevance in physical processing of materials. When it comes to electronics things start to get fuzzy (really fuzzy) and when it comes to computer programs it's outright stupid. Remember that Patents were intended to protect PHYSICAL objects of manufacture. Processes may have come in because 'A' would say 'but I treat this part with gizmosol during manufacturing and that gives me the advantage over my competitors" so the process, as long as it is a physical process which can be described and repeated by others, may be patentable. Personally I think that's really dumb and a process should only be a trade secret at best (although people leave, join other companies, and take these not-so-secrets with them). Now when it comes to computer programs there is nothing to manufacture. Describing a process for computer programming is unbelievably stupid (except to eye-pee lawyers). Copyright should (and does) suffice. Let's say 'A' produced a graphical calculator program. Excellent, but he's asking $1M per seat license for it. Now if you stole 'A's computer code and resold it with small changes that's a bad thing - after all it took 'A' 2 weeks to write this code. If you sat down and made your OWN calculator which had all the same features as the other one, that's perfectly fine. Why should 'A' be allowed to sue you? Instead, 'A' should respond to market forces and drop its license fees. This is the fundamental problem of 'software patents' - it is a scam which opposes a free market and it is absolutely out of line with the spirit of patent law.
consider the possibility
Microsoft will release an open-source OS.
It will use, the Linux kernel, GNU utilities, GPLv2 software of its choosing, as well as their (and other) proprietary software.
This software will be released on tivo-like hardware, where the user is restricted from running modified versions of it.
It will contain all the proprietary elements(anything they have a patent or lisence for), and the best hardware support they are capable of providing,
They will comply with the GPLv2, releasing modified source code when necessary(as little as possible), while doing all they can to make it useless to anyone else.
They don't need to compete if they can co-opt.
One way to try and limit any possible Microsoft success, is the GPLv3.
re: consider the possibility
Microsoft is a software company. I don't think there's going to be a "Microsoft PC" any time soon.
The company you described used a mach kernel, BSD software of their own choosing, and is slightly more popular than linux. It's called Apple.
I do think, however, that Microsoft will be forced into a model of software development that closely resembles open source. They can't afford another Vista-style monolithic OS.
What most people overlook is that without being able to restrict the usage of software on their hardware, Tivo would not be running linux. Nor would they have contributed back.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say the day that the linux kernel goes to gplv3, Tivo stops all updates to existing Tivos, and switches to a different underlying OS.
Most Tivo customers won't care, because they're not hacking them anyway.
I never thought I would see
I never thought I would see someone ever say, "[Microsoft] can't afford". Of course they can, they are Microsoft and they can afford anything.
*cough* xbox *cough*
'nuff said
STFU
SFU Services For Unix, formerly known as interix, is a free MS download which provides a unix/posix compatability layer (comething like cygwin). It inludes gcc. It also includes the complete gcc source code.
TiVo
Well, TiVo is first and foremost a TV VIDEO RECORDER. It is not intended as a general-purpose computer even though it has one at its core. Tinkering with the code may make it unusable. As Linus pointed out, you need some defense against the RIAA and MPAA as well. If people can alter the operating system at will, aside from ending up with a costly doorstop, the customer may circumvent schemes which the RIAA/MPAA required TiVo to build into their product. Now if someone sold a general-purpose computer that was crippled in that way, that would be a Bad Thing. Microsoft just wishes computers were like that. In the future they will probably activate the TPM chips in your computer without your say-so and do just as you say - prevent you from using your machine as you wish. But for now, you can still choose whether or not to activate the TPM, and currently you can do that to ensure that WinDos is never installed on your computers.
In most computers with TPM
In most computers with TPM chip, the BIOS has an option (that is on by default), to keep the TPM chip disabled, no matter what the OS wants.
Maybe they'll start to require that the TPM is enabled to install/run the system, but that check would soon be cracked.
they do
They're doing that already. It will be called Xandros and Linspire. Completely based on obsolete GPLv2 software (because they can't distribute GPLv3 due to patent deals).
Full of non-free microsoft crap (DRM codecs, etc). It is exactly like you describe it, except it isn't distributed _directly_ by microsoft (but by its puppets instead).
something like that worked for Apple....
So why not for Microsoft?
How about actually *using* GPLv2 first before dismissing v3 ?
For as much as Linus likes the GPLv2, currently the linux kernel is practically public domain with some tit-for-tat handwaving.
Infringement is rife, and he's never been interested in actually enforcing his favourite license, rendering the whole "GPLv2 is best spiel" useless.
Ironically, the only linux developer who publicly defends his copyright was the one who was actively involved with the GPLv3 process.
Somehow having become a celebrity on the engineering side, has made his opinion on very much unrelated topics count for more than it's worth, a problem that is encountered quite often and leads to actors in cowboy movies becoming presidents.
As funny and straightforward as his snide comments may be on a technical mailing-list, they become destructive and misleading outside of that particular niche of expertise.
Instead of dissing the GPLv3 he might actually want to do something with the GPLv2 first instead of just putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "We're all sharing. It's all tit for tat."
For as much as Microsoft
For as much as Microsoft likes proprietary licences, currently Microsfot windows is practically in the public domain, with some BSA handwaving, and they've never been much interested in actually enforcing their favourite licence, rendering the whole 'piracy is evil spiel useless'.
Ironically, the founder of Microsoft has actually publically said "if they're going to pirate anyone's operating system, I want them pirating mine" or something like that.
Ho hum. Maybe both of them realise that you don't educate people by breaking their fingers every time they don't understand yet.
Linux Under Seige
This is something I've seen going on ever since GPL3 became a possibility.
The way I see it anywayz, the kernel developers are under seige. It doesn't matter if they don't want to move to the next version of the license; the FSF are going to continue tirelessly chipping away, from as many different angles as they need to, until they get what they want.
That means continuing pressure from Alan Cox, who as I said on Slashdot I feel is Stallman's resident minion within the kernel team, and it also means continuing visits from external cultic PR bots like the above Alexandre.
A decision to either go one way or the other needs to be made, here. Either the kernel gets relicensed under something which is unaffiliated with the FSF entirely, or it is honestly, consciously acknowledged that both the kernel and its' developers became the personal property of Richard Stallman from the time that the GPL was first used, and the consequences of that are also accepted.
Eh. There wouldn't be
Eh. There wouldn't be anything going on if Linus and a few others didn't keep loudly misrepresenting the GPLv3, the GPLv3 process, and the participants in that process.
The simple and indisputable factual errors being made on Linus' part are so egregious that a neutral observer would probably ask who was lining his pockets. Sadly, history seems to indicate that Linus has come by his errors on this honestly,... The single mindedness and nearly-complete inability to tolerate dissenting views with decorum after Linus has made up his mind is a typical, although not too frequent, aspect of his behavior.
I'd say that this is what happens when you have such a huge cult of personality.. when someone's becomes more judged on their fame and reputation than the objective qualities of their arguments... but Linus acted this way long before he was famous.
I guess he's just a natural, but the emperor still wears no clothes.
>>That means continuing
>>That means continuing pressure from Alan Cox, who as I said on Slashdot I feel is Stallman's resident minion within the kernel team
Contrary to slashdot culture, you might want to be informed and look at the lkml archives for a bit. It becomes obvious very quickly your statement isn't right. It isn't even wrong. Unless beards are a magic mindcontrollling device.
Maybe...
He's English and he gets off by poo-pooing the Welsh.
Wow.
It's not new for Linus to come off looking like an idiot in a heated debate... but I think he's setting a new record here.
The exchange over the CD-ROM copy of Linux is a good example... Linus has gone into full frontal UPPERCASE name calling mode to Alexandre, calling him an idiot and such but it is quite clear that Linus has a significant misunderstanding of the clear language of GPLv3 and that Linus is going to viciously attack anyone who tries to correct him.
The GPLv3 requires distributors who sell copies to consumers to extend to consumers at least the same level of ability to modify the covered software on the recipient's device as the distributor has retained. Really. Red Hat doesn't have to enable you to modify your CD-ROM, ... but tivo would have to not prohibit you from modifying *your* tivo device in the same manner that *they* can modify *your* tivo. Yes, under GPLv3 Tivo can just make it equally hard for everyone to modify.
Alan cox doesn't seem to like that loophole, ... GPLv3 is actually more permissive than a strict reading of GPLv2, but a strict reading of this aspect of v2 would have all sorts of other unfortunate side-effects ... At least Alan actually understands the license.
I wouldn't lose any respect for Linus for having an honest disagreement over the implications of the license, ... but I do lose respect for him not bothering to actually to know what the implications are before acting like a total asshole.
When all is said and done, I just hope that owner modification of consumer devices becomes more common place before it becomes illegal to sell modifiable consumer devices just as it is currently illegal to sell video recorders which are not disrupted by macrovision. :( The major players are already locking their hardware, a nice legal prohibition will keep upstarts like Neuros off the market and thus remove the competitive disadvantage of lockdown. ... IMHO, thats the real threat.. not TiVO.
"The major players are
"The major players are already locking their hardware"... kind of the point Linus is making isn't it? Linus belives that a SOFTWARE license should not be dictating HARDWARE usage rights.
Hardware Software
Hello,
It seems to me rather difficult to separate software and hardware so easily. Apart from the semantics, i suggest that because they necessarily interact and are not two abstractions we should consider the effects of one on the other, in licenses for instance.
In this sense interesting hardware is one that can actually run software and maybe not so much storage media (like Red Hat CDs).
Yours,
Hardware that runs Software
Yes, let's make the distinction between hardware actually capable of running software, and "hardware" that's just storage media.
Let's also consider Voting Machines as example hardware running signed linux kernels. Bare with me here, we don't want random 3rd party kernels running, or even any untrusted code on the voting machine. I think DRM and treacherous computing can still be fought off by making two requirements, and the first one is already in the GPLv3:
1) If I buy hardware from you that runs linux (tivo), you're obligated to give me the proper build environment (including any cryptographic keys) that lets me perfectly duplicate the software.
2) ...and if I don't care about building my own kernel, I will return/delete the build environment (you can even get it in signing from me). You still get the chance to upgrade the software, and protect my privacy.
Sure, there will be tivo users who won't even know the 1st option is available, but will still exercise the 2nd option, which is what voting machine buyers would do too.
I don't know enough about licensing, but I think it could work. In both cases (tivo and voting machines), they want the exact same thing, one wants DRM for votes, and the other wants DRM for copyright content. Fuck if I know how to distinguish between the two, other than to start attacking the DMCA, and the rights it gives to copyright holders.
http://neverfollow.blogspot.com
> Let's also consider Voting
> Let's also consider Voting Machines as example hardware running signed linux
> kernels. Bare with me here, we don't want random 3rd party kernels running, or
> even any untrusted code on the voting machine. I think DRM
Maybe it's just that we don't want voting machines...
I trust the "random 3rd party kernel" just as little as I trust the "(non-?)random vendor-approved kernel".
GPLv3 does absolutely
GPLv3 does absolutely nothing to prevent voting machines from being secured by responsible agencies. Stop spreading lies.
You're correct about the
You're correct about the GPLv3 not forbidding anyone to make and sell secure voting machines, but it didn't use to be that way in the earliest drafts. I'm merely pointing out that DRM makes for good security too, it's two sides of the same coin. Linus has pointed out as much in some of the first lkml flame-wars about the GPLv3.
http://neverfollow.blogspot.com
Not in the first draft either...
Although it was a widespread misunderstanding at the time, the early drafts would not have prohibited secure voting machines. It's not shocking to see that the same people who promoted that piece of mis-information are still promoting misinformation about the GPLv3 today.
Like many other pieces of mis-information regarding the GPLv3 drafts (current or previous) it is trivial to find a clear explination if your concern is the truth rather than mudslinging and drama.
Type, GPLv3 voting machine in to google and hit I'm feeling lucky. Wait, if you're bashing GPLv3 you're probably too lazy for that, so I'll make it easier: See http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-tc-voting-machines which was written about the first public draft. Or if clicking is too hard:
“free software”
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore, is the definition of free software: a program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:
* You have the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
* You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to the source code, since making changes in a program without having the source code is exceedingly difficult.)
* You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a fee.
* You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the program, so that the community can benefit from your improvements.
Tivo does those things. Tivo has the right to distribute Linux on their devices. It is still possible to modify the Linux code, which is freely available, for the Tivo; putting it on the device is the hard part, and that it is still possible, with research. However, you could easily modify the software to run on Neuros hardware. The device is independent of the software, even if it is still hard (or illegal) to place the software on the device. If someone gave you a Linux distro CD glued to a snail, do you expect them to give you the list of hardware (such as the type of glue), or instructions to do it, even though it does not matter, since you can just run the software on something else (such as a computer or a palm pilot or an iPod)?
"that it is still possible, with research"
If it were just a pain it wouldn't be much of a problem. That is not the case in the real world: with good cryptographic controls it can be made virtually impossible to execute the freedoms guaranteed by the license, unless you think each user needing to crack open a 90nm IC under an electron microscope and shorting across gates to be a realistic form of "possible".
The GPL is very clear that it has the intention of perserving the personal freedom of downstream users. RMS makes a great example of a printer driver. If the GPL only protected the freedom to see the sourcecode but not to recompile it and use it on the device which you own it would be ensuring little more freedom than the Microsoft Shared Source license: Look but don't touch!
It seems to me that the grandparent poster was more concerned that any form of manufacturer imposed difficult is going to end up with the force of law. In the US, with its DMCA, this is almost certainly already the case.
I always laugh at people who say that DRM is not a risk because it can always be cracked, sure that works if you are a movie pirate. But what about everyone else who wants to use legally purchased devices to view more than just the content published by government endorsed publishers? ... Thats the real risk here, not some silly inability to give illegal copies of itunes music to your 100,000 best friends.
But I have gone off-topic. The GPL has always said that you can't use outside means to effectively deny the rights demanded in the license and putting the software in a locked box is no different than trying to hide it behind a contract which additionally burdens it, both are violations of the spirit and language of even GPLv2, so it is a very good thing that GPLv3 makes it more clear and more easily enforceable.
Sad realization…
The sad realization I have come to is that the Linux kernel is not the answer to the future of a free & open ( in sprit and law ) OS. I guess that the only way to fix this to either hope that OpenSolaris goes GPLv3 or (while this may sound crazy) start a new kernel to replace the Linux kernel with.
I believe that if 1 man who IMHO has become too arrogant that he cannot see what is good for the truly free and open software community, should be a lesson that we need to learn from, so that we don’t fall in this trap again.
You can always ...
Join Andy Tannenbaum's team on MINIX3. Yeah, the best operating system ever. Much better than Linux. Just no drivers. Many features aren't quite working yet. But it's better than Linux. Alternatively you can join Theo deRaadt. Fortunately GPLv3 doesn't prevent the GNU tools from being used to build a non-free system like OpenBSD. Non-free? Absolutely - you can modify it and not distribute the code etc, but still built with free tools.
Also... if the linux kernel
Also... if the linux kernel goes (by some weird miracle) GPLv3, I am moving to BSD. My rent is not "free", so I have to make a buck.
Then do your own work
Then do your own work
The sad realization I have
The sad realization I have come to is that the Linux kernel is not the answer to the future of a free & open ( in sprit and law ) OS. I guess that the only way to fix this to either hope that OpenSolaris goes GPLv3 or (while this may sound crazy) start a new kernel to replace the Linux kernel with.
I believe that if 1 man who IMHO has become too arrogant that he cannot see what is good for the truly free and open software community, should be a lesson that we need to learn from, so that we don’t fall in this trap again.
I believe that I may not have been clear in what I have said above. I am trying to say that, if the Linux kernel does not go GPLv3. We will need to find an alternative that can replace it with a kernel that is GPLv3 ie openSolaris, completely new kernel, (by some godly mirical) HURD or any thing that is GPLv3 (truly free and open as in for the community)in spirit and law. Don't get me wrong I love FreeBSD and love the license and it has its own place. But at this time we need something that is for the masses ( ie eye candy and a good desktop - freeBSD is not that - while I would never replace FreeBSD from a server etc etc). When I say a arrogant man above I am referring to Linus who has hijacked the wishes of hundreds of contributers like my self and has refused to act in for the good of the community. The lesson we need to take from this is, no one man should dictate how free open software is written and used. The FSF is a organizations ( note I am not a a RMS fan - dont like extream views) that was set up to do the job of protecting the open free software community. It has done this by providing the GPLv3 in reaction to a number of challenges being faced by the community at a difficult time ie external threats, DRM etc. FSF is not the sole property of RMS, there are others there who have given us all the GNU frame work that make Linux possible. I don't see any reason not to allow FSF GPLv3 to cover a kernel that is codependent on the framework GNU provides. We need to move away from a single ( while he may be a good engineer ) person controlling a community effort. If Linus cant see the good of the community he needs to be replace with something that can. I would hope that Linus sees the light and comes the GPLv3 way. Taking his words at face value it doesn't seem likely. IMHO I believe it is time we moved on to a truly open and free ( again for the community )kernel.
Well
Well, Linux is only a kernel. Linux is only a kernel. Linux is only a kernel. Despite Linus' dislike of the GPL 3, it's not his dislike that prevents the kernel from changing licences-- It's the multitude of copyright holders. (Some dead and vanished.) I don't think people should lose sight of that, or the fact that Linux is only a kernel, pretty much the whole of the userland that used standard FSF boilerplate with be going GPL 3. I think it's a shame that the kernel won't be going GPL 3, and that it didn't use the FSF boilerplate... But if nothing else Linus' rants on the subject did cause a lot of peer review of the GPL 3... It should be one of the best vetted licences in history at this point.
everybody for himself?
Sorry, but this "BSD encourages branches" is a little bit wrong.
There're three major BSDs available, several developers work on more than just one of them, and code is given and taken everynow and then, when appropriate. Sure, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD are very different, but what about SuSE/Novell, Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware, just to name some popular Linux distributions?
Again: three major BSDs, three not yet vanished or irrelevant forks I'm aware of (PC-BSD, Desktop-BSD, Dragonfly-BSD) that aren't real forks in all cases (Dragonfly is the only one I'd consider a "fork"), against AFAIK severall hundread Linux distributions. So BSD encourages branches and GPLv2 encourages merge?
Get a grip.
Many people fear that BSD (or similar) licensed code may be "stolen" by bad commercial guys. But what most of you guys don't get is that doing a "secret" fork also means that you've to maintain it. Not giving back your changes means that you've to spend increasing amounts of time merging from upstream. Or you just don't sync with upstream, but then you also don't get important bug fixes (many vendors don't care, nor do they customers, that's why we've so much trash on the net this days).
huh?
You're confusing issues here. The 'distributions' are not the Linux kernel. All distributions use a copy of the kernel available from the archives - no secrets added, in fact often things are removed. Frequently a kernel is patched with a number of changes from a future kernel or the -mm branch, but the distributions all give you the source code and all code is part of a contemporary kernel.
There are more than 3 major BSDs available - don't forget OSX. OSX is a fork and in all likelihood continues to pull in changes from the parent. A FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD kernel are all different beasts; they share a large part of common code, but for each project the code is not all available from a single source as the various Linux kernels are. You might say that the relation between these BSDs is like the -rcX kernel and the -mm kernel - but these BSDs will NEVER be merged while many things in the -mm kernel WILL be merged.
It's all about hate.
From the whole topic all I see is hate :)
Linus is a hater for sure :) but FSF guys does not give up.
The whole GNU/Linux community is huge mass of hate.
Bunch of trolls that are very scared from M$.
But I respect Linus - he is my hate guru. Whenever there is a some
linux internal disccussion he do not miss a chance to say that all others
(M$, app, BSDs and etc) are morons, idiots and so on.
You guys should put yourself in this "flame list" and stop wasting internet traffic
with flame wars :)
P.S. DRM is evil, right?
Linus may be right
From the GPLv2 Preamble:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."
Does this mean that I must give (or be able to give) the right to vote, if I distribute software covered under the GPL? Yeah, that's a contrived example, but it's the same kind of argument the FSF is making with respect to hardware.
But, have no fear, the Preamble goes on to specify exactly what they meant:
"You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
So what they mean is not the right to vote, and is not the "right" to manipulate the hardware, neither of which a software license could grant anyway. The text of the Preamble meant that licensees could obtain copies of the software, as well as copies of the source to the software, and I would have to tell them they can do so as well as provide this for them upon request.
Maybe back then, RMS never considered the possibility that hardware would restrict the operation of software, and the GPLv3 is a correction of that. Or maybe, as it appears given the public reaction and timing of the remarks, this is really just a knee-jerk reaction to what Tivo has done with a piece of software RMS is trying to use as a poster child. It's hard for Linus, or you, or me, to say what RMS/FSF intended when they wrote the original license, though I suspect that's what the Preamble was meant to do. And by my reading as well, I agree with Linus.
Linus is correct about something that the FSF ignores. Not under dispute is the fact that modifying a piece of software creates a new/different piece of software than the original. But transferring this different software onto the Tivo means you are modifying the Tivo ... you are modifying a hardware device, not software (you already did that). This can (and usually will) void your warranty.
But by purchasing the device, you own that hardware. You are free to do whatever you want with the hardware, as long as you stay within local laws. A software license can't give you any more rights than you already have to a piece of hardware. The manufacturer doesn't have to make it easy for you to modify your hardware, and they don't have to guarantee that your modifications will work.
This is why some people buy some hardware, and other people buy different hardware. If a hardware vendor makes a restrictive piece of hardware that no one buys, that hardware vendor will go out of business. They should be allowed to cause themselves to go out of business.
Neither RMS nor the FSF, nor Linus, nor you nor I have the right to attempt to dictate what someone does with their design of hardware. We do have the right not to purchase that hardware if we don't like the design, and we do have the right to modify the hardware we own after we purchase it. The GPL merely grants us the right to obtain and modify (and redistribute) the software running on that hardware, under certain conditions.
RMS or the FSF don't have to like what Tivo did. If they don't like it, they should vote with their wallets (ie: not buy a Tivo) and encourage others to do the same.
Er. No.
The GPLv3 doesn't make people give you the right to modify hardware in the general case. The GPLv3 is concerned with hardware you *own*, hardware that you already have the right to modify.
The problem v3 is trying to address on this front is that some people are locking up the users right to modify free software while keeping that right for themselves by putting it inside special hardware/software/firmware boxes.
By doing so the source is just as useless to the user as if they had first passed it through an obfuscate, or failed to provide a critical and non-replaceable part of the building tool-chain. v3 makes it abundantly clear that the tools needed to install the software on the equipment that runs the software are part of that tool-chain.
Then build your own hardware
You have the software, you have the right and ability to modify it as you see fit. You just don't have the ability to put it back on that same hardware. So? Build your own hardware that allows this.. What's to stop you (other than time, money, and other little issues)?
Sure, you bought the hardware and you have a right to do anything you want with it. Buy a toaster and modify it into a Formula 1 race car if you want. Nobody is going to stop you, although you may get a few funny looks.
Linus has a very real point. In fact his example of the CD is spot on. Probably more apt is the current crop of "live CD's". The software *is not* the CD. The CD is simply the carrier for the software. You can modify the software all you want, but to get it back onto the same hardware is gonna take some extreme hardware modifications. Probably cheaper to obtain your own hardware that will accept the modified software.
Rhetorical question: Why has no one built a Tivo look alike that doesn't have the same hardware limitations?
But transferring this
For the purposes of this argument, there is no such thing as software - just differing internal states of hardware. The hardware is not being modified. The internal states within the hardware are being modified.
Put another way, pouring the water out of a glass and filling it with Kool-Aid instead does not modify the glass.
Isn't most of the Linux
Isn't most of the Linux kernel licensed under GPLv2 *or later*?
Yes I'm aware of the snippet in the README file that says it's GPLv2 *only*, but if you look in include/linux/module.h:
Then grep the kernel sources for ^MODULE_LICENSE...
$ find /usr/src/linux/ -type f -name '*.c' -exec grep ^MODULE_LICENSE {} \; | sort | uniq -c 1 MODULE_LICENSE ("Dual BSD/GPL"); 33 MODULE_LICENSE ("GPL"); 1 MODULE_LICENSE( "GPL"); 1 MODULE_LICENSE( "GPL" ); 99 MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL"); 1 MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL"); 24 MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL"); 24 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights"); 35 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); 1 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") ; 2636 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); 1 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); /* combination of LGPL + GPL source behaves as GPL */ 2 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); 1 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); // Actually dual-licensed, but it doesn't matter for 5 MODULE_LICENSE("GPLv2"); 1 MODULE_LICENSE("MIT"); 10 MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE); 1 MODULE_LICENSE(ET61X251_MODULE_LICENSE); 1 MODULE_LICENSE(SN9C102_MODULE_LICENSE); 1 MODULE_LICENSE(W9968CF_MODULE_LICENSE); 1 MODULE_LICENSE(ZC0301_MODULE_LICENSE);I personally interpret this as GPLv2 or later, and GPLv2 *only* for the basic kernel stuff (arch, mm, etc).
I'm guessing header files aren't licensed, otherwise #including them from, say, a BSD-licensed module would be illegal.
Linus is right, but slightly too wordy
The "Tivoization" clause in GPLv3 can be summed up much more succinctly:
If I get a computing device which contains GPLv2-licensed software, I can obtain the source for the GPL'd software on it, I can modify the software, and I can install the software on a computing device and run it.
The GPLv3 effectively changes the above to read "install the software on THE SAME computing device", not "...on A computing device".