Thoughts about GPL 3 Debate
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Jun 16, 2007 10:11 AM EDT |
FOSS is going through touch times recently. Not only because of the latest series of contracts MS is making with the garbage distros, but also because the heated debate whether the Linux Kernel should stay under GPL v2 or be released under the new GPL v3. The idea of dual licensing the kernel is pretty much not popular at all. The debate is the more serious one because it does have multiple ramifications on the future of FOSS. The MS contracts are not going to have a big impact especially if the kernel is released under the new GPL v3 license. I read they whole exchange. It is very interesting, lengthy, and shows a lot of emotions and frustration especially on Linus part. It is very informative like any one would expect. I tried to summarize the thoughts and ideas as much as I can without making it lengthy, which would defeat the purpose of this post. Instead, and for the sake of not missing on some of the great ideas, I encourage everyone to read the full version and feel the emotions involved and step back to weigh in on each side. I happen to agree with those who support the the Tivoization clause in GPL 3. It will become clear why as I weigh in with my thoughts. Most of the correspondence was between Linus & Alexandre Oliva, whom I have no idea who he is. There are responses from Alan Cox (Whom I highly respect like Linus) and few others that support Linus and few others who were trying to convince Linus to support GPL 3 (Alan was one of them). Linus is very assertive about his believe in the GPL2 and adamant about it as being the best license for Linux Kernel. This comes about from what he calls "Tit for Tat" concept, which the way I understood it as Linus simply explains "if you are going to use my code and you happen to revise it, I expect you to give back the modification". Linus is not concerned about how you use his code, where you use it, or how you use it. He does not care if you use it to make war or peace, whether you sell it or give it for free, whether you restrict your hardware or not. You are free to do whatever you want with it as long as you abide with the "Tit for Tat" concept. Linus tried to explain that, GPL2 is a balanced license, which did and still does gain wide acceptance because it grants reasonable freedoms, and at the same time has some restriction to protect those freedoms, not like BSD license, where users have total control of the code. Linus is more in favor of Open Source concept than GPLed code, which he believes that GPLed v3 code has clause that extends restriction to hardware by the way of software restrictions while GPLed v2 code doesn't. He doesn't agree with that clause. The restriction stems out from the Tivoization clause, which would prevent Tivo from restricting their hardware. In Linus's opinion, Tivo complies with the GPL v2 because they release the code back and consequently hasn't done anything wrong. There is obvious frustration on Linus part, he even got to the point where he said, This is my code and I can chose whatever license I want. He even threatened of putting Alexandre on his Spam list if he doesn't stop sending him e-mail. Neither one did. That shows how hard and dedicated these guys are trying to resolve differences without making the debate personal, even after Linux shot several personal insult at Alexandre who was pretty calm and conducted. I guess Alexandre pretty well knows and understands Linus's style of debate. I believe that Linus's “Tit for Tat” concept stems from the scientific community where scientist released their work in the open for everyone to build on and all they expected in return is full credit for their work and effort and every one else to follow suit in continuing on their work and research. After all, he did cite what Newton said “I can see better because, I stand on the shoulders or my predecessors.” Alexandre point to Linus was, when you released Linux under the GPL v2 license, you knew very well that, the GPL v2 was all about granting and protecting users rights and freedoms. It was never about the developer rights since the Copyright law is responsible for that and does a pretty good job at it. Consequently, Since you adopted the GPL v2 for your code, it is only natural for you to agree with the GPL v3 because it extends those rights by protecting them against the new dangers FOSS is facing. Tivo is restricting the rights of the users on hardware, which users purchase and own, by using the kernel software which is supposed to protect the users rights not restrict them. I think Linus took this as if Alexandre is accusing him of being confused. That made the correspondence to become very heated. I think what Alexandre was trying to say, although he didn't say it clearly but should have, is even if Tivo didn't do anything wrong against the GPL v2, a point which he debates using the preamble in the v2 that says, if you modify the code, you are obliged to extend the same rights you obtained from the original code to the users. Alexandre's point is, Tivo is restricting the hardware using the software. There is a great danger in allowing that. GPL2 served a good purpose for a long time. Time has changed though, and there are new more serious threats and new offenders who are finding ways around the terms of GPL v2, and in the process are taking away the very best freedoms the GPL v2 license tries to preserve and protect for the users. Linus's opinion is that, the GPL v2 protects software only while the GPL v3 extends protection to hardware which it shouldn't, doesn't agree with it and he is not going to change his mind just because FSF wants him to. Linus also adds, Tivo has designed their hardware and has the right to do whatever they want with it, including restricting it. Tivo designed it that way and selling it with a hardware license that users are agreeing to its restrictions. Linus has a point, but Alexandre says, the hardware ultimately belongs to the user with restrictions facilitated by the very software that grants them freedom, I believe Alexandre also has a point too. By the end of the thread as of yesterday's read, things calmed down a little after Alexandre asked the question, is the Tivoization clause the only issue Linus has. Linus response was yes, but he still wasn't too enthusiastic about the changes now and may be in future. He pointed out that he is not too comfortable in trusting the FSF not making more changes in the future, or at least this is what I understood. I guess the primary clause in questions Is the Tivoization. Is it really necessary? I agree that time has changed. FOSS software is more in danger now than any time before due to the latest contracts of MS with some distros and the intensified efforts by MS to control FOSS. MS didn't take FOSS seriously before, but do now. They know better now they see how good and improved FOSS has become, how large a scale the interest escalated to, and how fast FOSS is being adopted. They are even admitting it by saying their customers are requiring it. If Tivoization is allowed, what prevents other companies from doing the same as Tivo did but with standard PC? Dell can do it, HP can doing, any one can do it without infringing on the GPL v2 license. Is this going to be acceptable? what would become and happen to FOSS? What would prevent MS from collaborating with OEMs to come up with similar scheme (read Palladium) and develop their own distribution, which users can't run unless you license from MS? Wouldn't that be FOSS restricted? If Tivo wants to restrict their hardware, and I believe it is their rights, why don't they do it within the hardware itself instead and leave Linux alone and free? They already state the restriction in their hardware license and some users are accepting it, it shouldn't be a problem for them to enforce it in their hardware instead. Linux says he is pragmatic and I am sure he is because he already indicated that he would accept the GPL v3 if there were a good reason. Isn't the danger of circumventing GPL freedom a good reason? He also said that, if Sun releases Solaris under GPL v3, he would consider that as a good reason. Why does Linus want to tie GPL v3 adoption for Linux with Sun Solaris being under GPL v3? I hope Sun does release Solaris, all Solaris, ZFS and all, under GPL v3 for its own sake and the sake of FOSS. cross pollination between Solaris & Linux is ideal. I believe Sun has a golden opportunity to reinvent itself, regain market share, and to be a leader if not the leader in supporting FOSS. Sun GPLed OpenOffice, Java and contributed good technology and support to FOSS, why not continue this trend? What is there to lose when everything is to gain for them? Sun is not doing as good as they should due to their indecisiveness. May be if they truly join FOSS, it would be just what they need to relive their hay days instead of becoming another Digital. Anyone remembers DIGITAL? |
| jdixon Jun 16, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
> Tivo has designed their hardware and has the right to do whatever they want with it, including restricting it. Tivo designed it that way and selling it with a hardware license that users are agreeing to its restrictions. Well, on that particular point, Linus is wrong. Tivo can design their hardware anyway they want, but once you buy it, it's your hardware, not theirs. I have no idea if they try to sell you a "license" with the hardware or not, but (at least in the US) they have no authority to do so. As long as you abide by the laws in your area, once you've purchased the hardware you can modify it in any way you wish, and Tivo has no say in the matter. Now, the services they provide are another matter entirely. Those they can limit in pretty much any way they wish, including requiring you to run "authorized" software to access them. |
| Abe Jun 16, 2007 12:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:Well, on that particular point, Linus is wrong.What Linus is saying in that regards is, the consumers have the freedom to decide. Buy as licensed or don't. One response was that some countries (EU) forbids such a license if there is one. I believe the US allows such a license but not sure. I personally disagree with Linus too and for reasons. One is, why does Tivo have to restrict it using the kernel if they can do it at the hardware level? When the GPL is a license with the intent to furnish, grant and protect freedoms, why not also help protect user freedoms with other things if possible? Or at least why not avoid being a collaborator in restricting freedom? Put the burden on the manufacturer instead of FOSS. Another is, Linus needs to think about the consequences I listed at the end. Is this something that FOSS needs to allow to please Tivo? There is another company, I believe it is called Neuros, which doesn't limit the consumer and even encourage hacking. Why doesn't Tivo do the same but restrict the service using their hardware? From the correspondence, I think Linus is upset about being called confused about the GPL v2, which I haven't seen it in the post but may be it was his interpretation of some thing that was said. I think he will, or hope he will come around when he cools down. Tivoization term is very crucial. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!