GPL V3 and Linux
Jeff V. Merkey
been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
whether Linux will move to GPL3? I support adoption and congrats to
Stallman -- A++++.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Stephen Hemminger
"Jeff V. Merkey" <jme...@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
> have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
> whether Linux will move to GPL3?
No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the copyright
holders.
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemm...@osdl.org>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
Patrick McLean
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:49:44 -0700
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <jme...@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
>> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
>> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
>> have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
>> whether Linux will move to GPL3?
>
> No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the copyright
> holders.
>
I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed
specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING:
> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
Alan Cox
> I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed
> specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING:
It may well do, or bits of it may well do but it is rather early to
speculate.
> > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>
> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
It isn't clear that this will be a problem. Very few people specifically
put their code v2 only, and Linus edit of the top copying file was not
done with permission of other copyright holders anyway so really only
affects his code if it is valid at all.
What finally happens is going to depend almost entirely on whether the
GPL v3 is a sane license or not and on consensus, and it is *way* too
early to figure that out.
Jeff V. Merkey
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:49:44 -0700
>> "Jeff V. Merkey" <jme...@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
>>> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
>>> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts,
>>> and have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus
>>> on whether Linux will move to GPL3?
>>
>>
>> No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the
>> copyright
>> holders.
>>
>
> I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed
> specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING:
>
> > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>
> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
I can do a ceremony and call them with an eagle bone whistle and a
Califonia Condor Feather. We can then ask them directly.
GPL2 is fine if the kernel stays that way for my projects. moving
forward, the patent retaliation clause is a great idea.
Jeff
Jeff V. Merkey
>>
>> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
>> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
>
>
>
> I can do a ceremony and call them with an eagle bone whistle and a
> Califonia Condor Feather. We can then ask them directly.
> GPL2 is fine if the kernel stays that way for my projects. moving
> forward, the patent retaliation clause is a great idea.
> Jeff
I called them at the sacred fire in my ceremony room with music from the
bones of an eagle. They said whatever concensus is reached
by the majority if fine with them. One of them said something about
a woman wearing a crazy hat with a white ostrich feather in it
he did not care for, but that was it.
Alexander Shishckin
> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
> have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
> whether Linux will move to GPL3? I support adoption and congrats to
> Stallman -- A++++.
software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
--
I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally.
Chase Venters
> GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
spin it into silly conspiracies?
Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant things?
Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also Stallman's
license?
I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for too
long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try having
some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the
"company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free software'
stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for themselves and their
users -- not for companies. It just happens that Stallman's license allows
business and industry to harmonize.
> --
> I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally.
It would seem...
Alexander Shishckin
> On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> > software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> > person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> > tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> > software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> > probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
>
> Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
> Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
> spin it into silly conspiracies?
'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
This is not exactly the way these words are meant to be used.
> Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant things?
> Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also Stallman's
> license?
Surely significant things/projects do have their origin there. This is
yet another sad consequence. I hope we can someday get rid of all this
'GNU is ...' crap and build a better world that understands 'freedom'
for what it really is, not just
I'll-sue-you-should-you-use-my-code-in-your-proprietary-product stinky
sort of thing.
> I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for too
> long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try having
> some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
He's not a god, nor a prophet, just a human, face it.
> As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the
> "company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free software'
> stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for themselves and their
> users -- not for companies. It just happens that Stallman's license allows
> business and industry to harmonize.
Not even close. Too much of RMS's bloody 'lectures/prophecies/you-name-it'
can do this to a person. So please be careful.
Chase Venters
> > Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on
> > companies? Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that
> > all you can do is spin it into silly conspiracies?
>
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
> nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
> This is not exactly the way these words are meant to be used.
Perhaps you are looking for BSD? This is Linux, and the GPL, and we use
something called 'copyleft' that is designed to ensure everyone has freedom
and no one can take it away.
> > Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant
> > things? Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also
> > Stallman's license?
>
> Surely significant things/projects do have their origin there. This is
> yet another sad consequence. I hope we can someday get rid of all this
> 'GNU is ...' crap and build a better world that understands 'freedom'
> for what it really is, not just
> I'll-sue-you-should-you-use-my-code-in-your-proprietary-product stinky
> sort of thing.
Heh... I suspect you won't be spending much time on or around LKML if that's
your attitude. There are a fair number of kernel developers that believe
strongly enough in all this stuff that they would make legal threats / sue
(rightfully so) over someone writing proprietary drivers.
> > I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for
> > too long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try
> > having some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
>
> He's not a god, nor a prophet, just a human, face it.
Indeed, but at least he's provided the world with something of value.
> > As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the
> > "company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free
> > software' stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for
> > themselves and their users -- not for companies. It just happens that
> > Stallman's license allows business and industry to harmonize.
>
> Not even close. Too much of RMS's bloody 'lectures/prophecies/you-name-it'
> can do this to a person. So please be careful.
What exactly were you saying "not even close" to? That free software is
started and written by most as a hobby? That GPL is business friendly?
Because if you deny it, you're simply WRONG.
I have an important question for you. If you don't like the license /
philosophy / players behind this free software / open source thing, what the
fuck are you doing in LKML? It's really obnoxious to come waltzing into a
community and start telling people "Someone should
probably put an end to these miserable efforts."
In truth, I have some co-workers that feel like you do about copyleft and the
GPL - moaning, groaning and bitching about it. The irony is that they would
be in NO WAY affected by the GPL (it's a *license to distribute*, not a
*contract for use*) unless they decided to make copies. More specifically,
the reason they're always bitching is because they _very specifically_ want
to TAKE and not GIVE BACK.
If you recall, Eric Raymond once said we don't need the GPL anymore. If I
recall correctly, that was the last time Eric Raymond made the headlines. He
rode out on a wave of vast disagreement from the community, and last I
checked, no one has gone from the GPL back to public domain.
Geert Uytterhoeven
> On 1/21/06, Chase Venters <chase....@clientec.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > > GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> > > software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> > > person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> > > tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> > > software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> > > probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
> >
> > Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
> > Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
> > spin it into silly conspiracies?
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
> nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
The problem with `just sharing' is that some people are only interested in the
`receiving' part of sharing, so unfortunately you need some extra legal stuff
in the license to make sure everyone plays fair.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Helge Hafting
>On 1/21/06, Chase Venters <chase....@clientec.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
>>>software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
>>>person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
>>>tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
>>>software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
>>>probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
>>>
>>>
>>Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
>>Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
>>spin it into silly conspiracies?
>>
>>
>Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
>'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
>nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
>
>
Wrong. The GPL does not in any way take away your *freedom to share*.
It does take away your freedom to *restrict* though, it limits your freedom
to *prevent others from sharing*.
What problem could you possibly have with that? Licences are simple -
don't like them, don't use the product. Why complain about it?
I don't like licences where I have to pay *money* just to get some software.
Expensive, and a waste if I end up not using that sw much.
So I try to avoid that kind when possible. Fortunately, that is
possible almost
all the time for me.
Now, if you don't like the GPL - don't use any GPL-licenced products then!
Why nag about it? I don't bitch about how the "pay" licences limits my
business opportunities. (I cannot possibly afford to buy
every payware program.) In particular, I cannot sell PCs containing lots
of pay-licences software without actually _paying_, thereby driving up
the price. But complaining about that would be silly.
The same applies to you. If you want to include GPL stuff in a product,
then your product goes GPL too. That is the _price_ for GPL code. If that
price is too high for you, don't use GPL code then! That should
be fine with you, and fine with us. But again - complaining about it is
silly.
>This is not exactly the way these words are meant to be used.
>
>
>
>>Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant things?
>>Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also Stallman's
>>license?
>>
>>
>Surely significant things/projects do have their origin there. This is
>yet another sad consequence. I hope we can someday get rid of all this
>'GNU is ...' crap and build a better world that understands 'freedom'
>for what it really is, not just
>I'll-sue-you-should-you-use-my-code-in-your-proprietary-product stinky
>sort of thing.
>
>
Well, write your own better licence then, and use it! Then you'll have the
satisfaction of seeing others use your code in their proprietary products.
Nobody stops you from doing that.
Helge Hafting
Bernd Petrovitsch
> On 1/21/06, Chase Venters <chase....@clientec.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > > GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> > > software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> > > person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> > > tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> > > software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> > > probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
> >
> > Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
> > Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
> > spin it into silly conspiracies?
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
No, because MSFTs business model is not the only one in the software
world (though MSFT keeps teaching that).
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
Horst von Brand
[...]
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely nothing
> to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
How so? The existence of GNU doesn't restrict *my* right to share as *I*
wish. If I, freely, place my stuff under GPL it /does/ restrict other
people in just "sharing" (i.e., taking without giving in return). And that
is fine with me. Not with them, I presume...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
linux-os (Dick Johnson)
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Alexander Shishckin <alexander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
>> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely nothing
>> to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
>
> How so? The existence of GNU doesn't restrict *my* right to share as *I*
> wish. If I, freely, place my stuff under GPL it /does/ restrict other
> people in just "sharing" (i.e., taking without giving in return). And that
> is fine with me. Not with them, I presume...
> --
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
> Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
> Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
> Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
The problem is that every rule and every law takes
away rights. Laws do not give rights. Rules do not
give rights. Amendments to existing laws sometimes
prevent the restriction of rights (like the first 10
amendments of the US Constitution), however there
are no rules or laws that ever, anywhere, provided
any rights whatsoever. Rules, regulations, and laws
are all about restricting rights.
Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
except in very special circumstances, governments usually
take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
The initial writer was correct. The GPL was supposed
to be all about freedom. Then, there are hundreds of
words that have nothing to do with freedom. They
establish rules. The crybaby says; "You will play
by my rules or..." Rules restrict freedom.
Perhaps these rules are necessary. However, for 20
years before the Internet even existed, people were
sharing source-code without rules. This was the
principle behind the PROGRAM EXCHANGE and other
obsolete BBS systems. At that time the ground-
work of most all the file-compression routines,
file-transmission routines, file-types, flight-
simulators, etc., the stuff now claimed by others,
was freely given away. Some expected their names
to remain in the source, but eventually their
names were changed to "Microsoft" or GPL. For
example, Phil Katz. He invented "zip" and gunzip
and all that stuff. He's now dead. His lifetime
of work has been stolen by others and claimed
as their own.
The Internet gets established and somebody who's
claim-to-fame was the development of the world's
most complicated word-processor, establishes some
legalese and a lot of well intentioned persons
fall into his trap as he claims that he developed
GNU/Linux as well. Wake up.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to Deliver...@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
Chase Venters
> The problem is that every rule and every law takes
> away rights. Laws do not give rights. Rules do not
> give rights. Amendments to existing laws sometimes
> prevent the restriction of rights (like the first 10
> amendments of the US Constitution), however there
> are no rules or laws that ever, anywhere, provided
> any rights whatsoever. Rules, regulations, and laws
> are all about restricting rights.
>
> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>
> The initial writer was correct. The GPL was supposed
> to be all about freedom. Then, there are hundreds of
> words that have nothing to do with freedom. They
> establish rules. The crybaby says; "You will play
> by my rules or..." Rules restrict freedom.
There's nothing crybaby about it! Copyleft is, as Stallman puts it, to flip
copyright on its head. If there was no such thing as copyright or other forms
of laws / restrictions on sharing ideas and intangible implementations, there
would be zero reason for the GPL because all the GPL aims to do is to
preserve the freedom to share.
So in that sense the GPL is about *enforcing* freedom.
I must admit that I'm terribly confused - I thought all of this was well
understood and accepted. Why must everyone attempt to spin the GPL into
something it is not? The only way the terms of this license would be in any
way restrictive on anyone is if they decided to *exploit* a given GPL work in
order to *restrict* the rights of future users of the work. In that case, the
GPL would intervene and say 'No'.
> Perhaps these rules are necessary. However, for 20
> years before the Internet even existed, people were
> sharing source-code without rules. This was the
> principle behind the PROGRAM EXCHANGE and other
> obsolete BBS systems. At that time the ground-
> work of most all the file-compression routines,
> file-transmission routines, file-types, flight-
> simulators, etc., the stuff now claimed by others,
> was freely given away. Some expected their names
> to remain in the source, but eventually their
> names were changed to "Microsoft" or GPL. For
> example, Phil Katz. He invented "zip" and gunzip
> and all that stuff. He's now dead. His lifetime
> of work has been stolen by others and claimed
> as their own.
The GPL isn't about anyone's "work" or "credit". The licenses that ARE
concerned with "credit" are licenses like the original BSD license with its
attribution clause - you must stamp your product and documentation with
notices that say your stuff was done by the University of Berkeley.
> The Internet gets established and somebody who's
> claim-to-fame was the development of the world's
> most complicated word-processor, establishes some
> legalese and a lot of well intentioned persons
> fall into his trap as he claims that he developed
> GNU/Linux as well. Wake up.
>
Are you suggesting that Stallman claims he developed GNU/Linux? Perhaps I'm
just really misunderstanding what you just said, but if you really did mean
it that way, perhaps you ought to point out where. If you're referring to the
fact that Stallman doesn't like people calling the combination of the kernel
and GNU tools "Linux", then it's only crybaby if you refuse to believe his
published intentions (that "we" care more about open source than free
software, and he's only trying to make sure that "free software" isn't
forgotten). That last part I don't agree with (I think plenty of kernel
people care greatly about free software), but I don't think it's silly to
call the full OS GNU/Linux either.
In any case, I don't think Stallman is concerned about fame so much as he is
concerned with his movement. If it were most other people, I'd say it's all
about fame, but Stallman has at least in my eyes proven himself to
consistently concern himself only with his philosophy.
I don't really blame Stallman for anything he's said that you might take as an
attempt to take credit. I get the impression from seeing the interplay
between "open source" and "free software", ESR and RMS, that ESR would be
happy to write free software and Richard Stallman right out of history. And
since I value "free software" just as much as I value "open source", I don't
want to see that happen.
The bottom line of all my rambling here is that these licenses aren't about
maintaining credit at all, which I think you were implying in your message.
Sans these "You will play by my rules or..." clauses, there would be no huge
open source community because the proprietary software vendors would vacuum
up anything of value and use it as leverage to lock people in. (And as for
your comment about BBSes and the days without licenses, a zillion dollar
proprietary software business had not yet been invented).
If you want open source licenses with no restrictions at all, that's "public
domain". And "public domain" won't ever be what it could be until you abolish
copyright.
Cheers,
Chase
Harald Arnesen
> The problem is that every rule and every law takes
> away rights. Laws do not give rights. Rules do not
> give rights. Amendments to existing laws sometimes
> prevent the restriction of rights (like the first 10
> amendments of the US Constitution), however there
> are no rules or laws that ever, anywhere, provided
> any rights whatsoever. Rules, regulations, and laws
> are all about restricting rights.
True. Without laws, everything would be chaos (some would say "anarchy",
but every anarchist I know have their own rules of conduct and customs).
It's a bit like when the laws of physics take away the universe's right
to to as it pleases (except that the Universe is pretty much the boss,
and if it does something not allowed by the laws, the laws will better
change).
> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
But on the other hand, the (sane) governments give me the right to avoid
being killed by a madman with a gun, because they control who is allowed
to own a gun.
> The initial writer was correct. The GPL was supposed
> to be all about freedom. Then, there are hundreds of
> words that have nothing to do with freedom. They
> establish rules. The crybaby says; "You will play
> by my rules or..." Rules restrict freedom.
And most other "open source" licences take away the programmers freedom
to *keep* derived works free for all to use.
> Perhaps these rules are necessary. However, for 20
> years before the Internet even existed, people were
> sharing source-code without rules. This was the
> principle behind the PROGRAM EXCHANGE and other
> obsolete BBS systems. At that time the ground-
> work of most all the file-compression routines,
> file-transmission routines, file-types, flight-
> simulators, etc., the stuff now claimed by others,
> was freely given away. Some expected their names
> to remain in the source, but eventually their
> names were changed to "Microsoft" or GPL. For
> example, Phil Katz. He invented "zip" and gunzip
> and all that stuff. He's now dead. His lifetime
> of work has been stolen by others and claimed
> as their own.
>
> The Internet gets established and somebody who's
> claim-to-fame was the development of the world's
> most complicated word-processor, establishes some
> legalese and a lot of well intentioned persons
> fall into his trap as he claims that he developed
> GNU/Linux as well. Wake up.
There (probably) wouldn't be a GNU/Linux without the man who developed
the worlds best word-processor (and the worlds best programming editor,
and the framework for the worlds best e-mail client).
--
Hilsen Harald.
Ian Kester-Haney
restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released
displays. Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary
drivers available.
Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that Artists
and their sponsors deserve
the right to prevent piracy. In my view the Open Source Community
have an incompatible attitude. In my mind the buying of a DVD means
that I watch it on DVD players be it on my computer or on the TV.
while I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux
based system, it behooves the open source community to support it in a
legal way. Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only
generates huge controversy in concerned industries. An Open Source
Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS community would be
a great diplomatic way to allow for more access to content. My
personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok, however
the converting of such material in a way not granted to me by the
Creator is not ethical. Richard Stallman is painting himself into a
corner in this way.
Hence:
The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and
other DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying
content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain their
works.
Thankyou
Kyle Moffett
> Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM
> restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released
> displays.
I'm sorry, what are you saying here? I've not heard about these soon-
to-be-released displays, could you elucidate, possibly summarizing or
linking to references?
> Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary drivers
> available.
In many peoples eyes, this would be a _good_ thing, besides, it's not
clear whether or not their binary drivers are legal _now_, without
concern for their status under the GPLv3
> Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that
> Artists and their sponsors deserve the right to prevent piracy.
Have you tried describing music "piracy" to a small child (say, age
6) in a way that distinguishes it from "sharing your things with
other people"? It's rather difficult, possibly even impossible.
Many people argue that with modern technology, this distinction has
become artificial and an artifact of an aging business model. A
number of artists who promote some music sharing have been doing very
well.
> In my view the Open Source Community have an incompatible attitude.
I will ignore the second bit, since it's mostly a matter of opinion,
but the Open Source Community (especially the Linux Community) values
copyright extremely highly. In fact, it is this copyright that makes
the Linux Kernel sources a true democracy. You cannot relicense the
whole without agreement from all (or an extremely large majority
bordering on "all") of the developers consent.
> In my mind the buying of a DVD means that I watch it on DVD players
> be it on my computer or on the TV.
Or, according to Fair Use as set down in a number of court cases,
make a single copy for backup, show privately to friends, convert to
an alternative format for viewing in a different way or with other
equipment.
> While I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux
> based system, it behooves the open source community to support it
> in a legal way.
I go to the store, I find a black box on the shelf, I pick it up, go
to the cashier, pay for it, and leave the store. At that point, I've
purchased an object and may do whatever I like with said object. I
never signed any license or filled out any forms prior to paying
money for it, and there was no condition that I do so, therefore no
_license_ conditions apply.
On the other hand, copying the DVD and giving a copy to all your
friends is _distributing_ it and therefore covered by _copyright_ law
(not license/contract law), which makes it illegal for me to do so
(although my personal opinion is that needs careful review and
possible revision).
> Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only generates
> huge controversy in concerned industries.
<Biased Personal Opinion>
The industries do not matter. The point of the government is to help
and protect the _people_. This means that to a limited extent, the
government protects individuals copyrights, and allows corporations
some rights (because they provide jobs, services, etc). This does
not mean that the government should do anything the industry wants
even though hundreds of millions of people are breaking that law on a
daily basis. Something that widespread (especially given the lack of
issues arising thereof) indicates that the _law_ is wrong, not the
many millions doing the breaking. This bends more towards the
copyright issues I talk about above, but applies here too.
</Biased Personal Opinion>
Besides, a DRM system is pointless and futile; it's trying to protect
data from people by giving them the encrypted data, the algorithm,
and the key. Any cryptographer will tell you that you are bound to
lose from the start.
> An Open Source Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS
> community would be a great diplomatic way to allow for more access
> to content.
Open Source Access Control System:
if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) {
provide_data(media_descriptor);
}
My 3-line patch to "fix" it to let me watch my German DVD in the US:
--- oldfile
+++ newfile
-if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) {
provide_data(media_descriptor);
-}
This is a _fundamentally_ _flawed_ idea.
> My personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok
Good
> however the converting of such material in a way not granted to me
> by the Creator is not ethical.
Why does the creator have any say in what you can do with it
personally? I'm legally allowed to buy a copy of MS Windows and burn
it for symbolic value; why the hell would we want to allow a
*CORPORATION* (Read: bunch of greedy rich executives) control what
you can do with stuff. Heck, we don't trust the _government_ (Read:
bunch of greedy rich lawyers), or sometimes even one's personal
_church_ to control.
> The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and other
> DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying
> content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain
> their works.
We don't _need_ to work with anybody, we're just converting abstract
mathematical algorithms to a more practically useable form and
publishing the result. The fact that somebody with lawlessness in
mind could do something illegal with our formalized codified
published math files is totally irrelevant. In the US (where I live,
can't speak for other countries) we don't blame the gun manufacturers
for what people do with submachine guns, so why should we blame the
software developers (Read: practical mathematicians) for what people
do with their programs?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible
-- Alan Kay
Bernd Petrovitsch
[...]
> Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that Artists
> and their sponsors deserve
> the right to prevent piracy. In my view the Open Source Community
Of course and ATM there are - at least in the free world - more than
enough possibilities to punish "piracy" of copied copyrighted work.
The whole DRM (which actually shopuld be read as "Digital Restrictions
Management") and "against copyright piracy" campaign is to take away
legal rights like "playing a legallay produced and bought DVD as often
was you wish" and to limit you to "view it at most 3 times and disallow
any copy - expecially legal ones".
> have an incompatible attitude. In my mind the buying of a DVD means
> that I watch it on DVD players be it on my computer or on the TV.
> while I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux
> based system, it behooves the open source community to support it in a
> legal way. Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only
The copyright-industry to-be-implemented access control is in fact
illegal.
> generates huge controversy in concerned industries. An Open Source
Yes, because the concerned industries ignored the develoment in last 20
years. And they don't like certain aspects and rights of e.g.
continental European laws (yes, copying music CDs privately and giving
them away as a birthday present is completely *legal* hereover. We
actually *pay* for this right with ~40 eurocent per writable medium
since decades, i.e. since music tapes were young and paper copying
machines were very expensive).
> Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS community would be
> a great diplomatic way to allow for more access to content. My
You are listening and beliving to the propaganda too much.
> personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok, however
> the converting of such material in a way not granted to me by the
> Creator is not ethical. Richard Stallman is painting himself into a
The creator (if you mean the artist) and the above mentioned "concerned
industries" are two different things.
And you probably have at the moment far more rights to copy for your
private use than you know - and this is at stake.
The strategic problem, that DRM has is: It doesn't hurt (or even apply
to) the big commercial (and thus illegal) copying organizations. And -
at least as far I the propaganda read - are the big evils.
The only target is the private consumer.
Do you want to pay 1$ for every time you hear a song?
Think of DVDs/CDs which *require* Internet access (next generation game
console will deliver that probably) and a (properly filled) PayPal
account.
> corner in this way.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
-
David Schwartz
> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
could clarify.
DS
Lee Revell
> > Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> > except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> > take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>
> I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
> such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
> could clarify.
This discussion could not have less to do with kernel development,
PLEASE take it elsewhere.
Lee
linux-os (Dick Johnson)
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
>> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
>> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>
> I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
> such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
> could clarify.
>
> DS
Simple, from Government 101. Suppose you start a new country unencumbered
with rules and laws. You have "total" freedom, therefore all rights.
Because you believe that everybody is "good" (you decide what that means)
and would, therefore, never do anything "bad", you don't need any
laws.
Sooner or later somebody does something "bad" (like kills somebody).
So, you make a law against killing. As you make that first law, you
have restricted rights. That's what laws do, they restrict rights.
Unfortunately, it never stops with the "obviously necessary"
laws. Eventually, every time somebody believes he or she has been
harmed somehow, the cry goes out; "There ought to be a law....".
Some goody-twoshoes in the government makes a new law. Eventually,
there are so many laws that there is no freedom whatsoever.
Most laws, designed to protect, have far-reaching consequences that
actually cause more problems than they are supposed to solve. That's
the nature of Law and Government in general. That's why it's important
to control (reduce) the number of laws that exist and control the
size of government. Of course, once the government controls the schools
all is lost.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to Deliver...@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
Alan Cox
> Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM
> restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released
The DRM restrictions mostly only restate some of the less clear effects
of the GPL. The GPL v2 already requires all the keys etc since it
requires the scripts to build. It just makes it clearer.
> displays. Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary
> drivers available.
The GPL doesn't permit them to anyway. If they are legal then it is
because they are not derivative works which forms an implicit barrier in
copyright law. Essentially copyright law limits itself to works based on
other works. So as an author of a book I can say "You may not copy this
book" but I cannot (in copyright enforced agreement) say "You may not
write a book on this subject if you read mine", only to control works
based upon mine in a material way (which is what "derivative work" is
all about).
That also means for example that a GPL OS running a non-derivative
application has no power to forbid that application from using DRM
itself.
Now there is a case where it get much messier - GPL with exceptions/LGPL
being the clear one. A glibc that prohibited linking with DRM using code
would raise much more complicated problems, but that is for the
glibc/FSF list to argue over and does need addressing sensibly.
> The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and
> other DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying
> content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain their
> works.
What on earth makes you think those bodies want creators to have any
rights. You've obviously never watched creators and the "industry"
fighting each other. Anyway fighting DRM is actually helping even the
music "industry" if H. Valarian's analysis is correct.
Free Software is about -freedom- that means the freedom to do things
like play music you own the rights to play and the freedom to distribute
music you have the right to distribute. The dream of big music industry
is mandatory DRM where there is no way for an artist to escape their
clutches and publish music without them getting a very large cut of, if
not all the profits.
Much of the big music industry today is like vanity publishing, they
sign you up, bill you for the costs of making the recordings, screw you
on royalty deals then charge you the remainder the royalties didn't
cover.
So why should we work with the RIAA members (especially as there is good
evidence to suggest that one of them stole GPL code for a proprietary
DRM system) ?
Free means that everyone must be able to use Linux
Alan
Jeff V. Merkey
>On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
>>>except in very special circumstances, governments usually
>>>take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
>>such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
>>could clarify.
>>
>> DS
>>
>>
>
>Simple, from Government 101. Suppose you start a new country unencumbered
>with rules and laws. You have "total" freedom, therefore all rights.
>Because you believe that everybody is "good" (you decide what that means)
>and would, therefore, never do anything "bad", you don't need any
>laws.
>
>Sooner or later somebody does something "bad" (like kills somebody).
>So, you make a law against killing. As you make that first law, you
>have restricted rights. That's what laws do, they restrict rights.
>
>
Say rather than restrict rights they define where your rights end and
the rights
of another person begin. Rather they "balance" rights by drawing a line
between
the rights of individuals and the rights of the state. The complex case
is something
called a "compelling interest". i.e. The government has a compelling
interest to
protect citizens from killing each other.
>Unfortunately, it never stops with the "obviously necessary"
>laws. Eventually, every time somebody believes he or she has been
>harmed somehow, the cry goes out; "There ought to be a law....".
>Some goody-twoshoes in the government makes a new law. Eventually,
>there are so many laws that there is no freedom whatsoever.
>
>
>
There are so many laws, you need to have courts in order to perform
"balancing tests" between the rights of individuals (courts of equity)
and the rights of the governement (compelling interests vs. the rights
of Individuals)
>Most laws, designed to protect, have far-reaching consequences that
>actually cause more problems than they are supposed to solve. That's
>the nature of Law and Government in general. That's why it's important
>to control (reduce) the number of laws that exist and control the
>size of government. Of course, once the government controls the schools
>all is lost.
>
>
>
Why Dick, we have something in common -- we are both libertarians (political
party that believes less laws and governemtn control is a very good thing).
Jeff
Ian Kester-Haney
it is sad to see big business rule the day, it is still copyrighted
works we are talking about. GPL v3 says that the use of DRM in or
around the GPLv3 software would be a direct violation and therfore
illegal under the GPL liscense. Respecting the limits setup by the
DRM or ACS would be a proactive step in making linux more corporate
friendly. Should the individuals producing, directing and starring in
movies and music be penalized for the abuses of the recording
industry. Piracy does exist and supporting the real creative works of
others is important.
According to the Managed Copy Protection in upcoming HD-DVD and
Blu-Ray discs, if the channel between digital display devices is not
authenticated as direct to display, the resolution would be cut to
prevent electronic copies from being easily made.
I seruiosly doubt that anyone commited to the Open Source community
would condone piracy, just as I am sure that Protection schemes always
break down in the end. It is sometimes irresponsible to circumvent
methods designed to protect peoples copyright. The viral liscensing
in the GPL v 2 allows for the best integration with 3rd party
applications.
The GPLv3 would not allow any copyrighted materials under DRM to be
viewed, one could even argue that protected PDF files might constitute
DRM and not be allowed under the new GPL. I think that subverting the
efforts of companies and artists to protect their works is
unnaceptable. Public crap about hacking iTunes to get unprotected
files is detrimental to the Open Source Community. It should be noted
that DRM is not inherently bad, implementations are currently pretty
crappy, but surely an open source DRM could be presented, and a step
to make that happen would be to keep the Kernel under GPLv2.
Bernd Petrovitsch
[...]
> movies and music be penalized for the abuses of the recording
Of course not. But I can't see any mentioning of these in the propaganda
of the big music industry.
> industry. Piracy does exist and supporting the real creative works of
> others is important.
ACK.
But DRM will not stop (or even hinder seriously) the big commercial
copying organizations only the private copies (even if they are legal by
allmeans).
So this argument is plain simply moot.
> I seruiosly doubt that anyone commited to the Open Source community
> would condone piracy, just as I am sure that Protection schemes always
> break down in the end. It is sometimes irresponsible to circumvent
> methods designed to protect peoples copyright. The viral liscensing
> in the GPL v 2 allows for the best integration with 3rd party
> applications.
> The GPLv3 would not allow any copyrighted materials under DRM to be
> viewed, one could even argue that protected PDF files might constitute
> DRM and not be allowed under the new GPL. I think that subverting the
With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
usually not the artist).
> files is detrimental to the Open Source Community. It should be noted
> that DRM is not inherently bad, implementations are currently pretty
No, but the motivation behind and the reasons for it existence is bad.
> crappy, but surely an open source DRM could be presented, and a step
> to make that happen would be to keep the Kernel under GPLv2.
Let's see if DRM actually get accepted or shares the success of micro
channel and other big business must-have "inventions".
[ Fullquote killed ]
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
-
Steven Rostedt
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 19:21 -0600, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
> [...]
> > friendly. Should the individuals producing, directing and starring in
> > movies and music be penalized for the abuses of the recording
>
> Of course not. But I can't see any mentioning of these in the propaganda
> of the big music industry.
>
> > industry. Piracy does exist and supporting the real creative works of
> > others is important.
>
> ACK.
> But DRM will not stop (or even hinder seriously) the big commercial
> copying organizations only the private copies (even if they are legal by
> allmeans).
> So this argument is plain simply moot.
I'll even go a step farther. All these technical restrictions for
prevention of copying really backfires in the end. For example, this
stupid Region coding of DVDs. I go to Germany quite a lot, and to help
out my German, I buy DVDs there so when I'm home I can listen to movies
in German. The problem arises when I try to play these at home, since my
DVD player is coded for the US. The only way I can watch movies that I
legally bought in Germany is to copy them (probably with illegal
software) and turn off the region code so I can watch them on my home
DVD players.
Now here's the kicker. A colleague of mine asked why I even bother
buying the DVDs in the store, when I could buy them on the black market
for a much cheaper price and they will play on my home player. This is
very tempting, but my conscience tells me to pay those that actually
make the films. But it does beg the question of what the Region coding
is actually trying to stop?
Sorry, this is not about kernel programming, any replies should probably
be sent off list.
-- Steve
Marc Perkel
Patrick McLean wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>
> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
>
>
Makes me wonder if something should be done to address the issue of dead
copyright holders. Not sure what but maybe there should be a clause in
GPL3 addressing that?
Jeff V. Merkey
>
>
> Patrick McLean wrote:
>
>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
>> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
>>
>>
>
> Makes me wonder if something should be done to address the issue of
> dead copyright holders. Not sure what but maybe there should be a
> clause in GPL3 addressing that?
Their heirs would have two years to bring a cause of action if they
object. Proper notice could be served by posting a notice on the
internet at kernel.org
that their code is being redistributed under GPL3. I note that the
general notice in the code states "GPL2 or any later version of the
license". Given this
language, it is highly likely the remaining code can proceed under a new
license without incident since it can be assumed they already agreed by
having this general notice posted at kernel.org for many years. I
think the point is moot. Legally, there is exposure if their successors
or owners
of their estates bring action. Those outside the US would of course be
subject to the laws of their jurisdiction. An attorney at FSF needs to
review their
code and render an opinion, but I think it will not be a problem.
Jeff
Jeff V. Merkey
>> Makes me wonder if something should be done to address the issue of
>> dead copyright holders. Not sure what but maybe there should be a
>> clause in GPL3 addressing that?
>
>
>
> Their heirs would have two years to bring a cause of action if they
> object. Proper notice could be served by posting a notice on the
> internet at kernel.org
> that their code is being redistributed under GPL3. I note that the
> general notice in the code states "GPL2 or any later version of the
> license". Given this
> language, it is highly likely the remaining code can proceed under a
> new license without incident since it can be assumed they already
> agreed by
> having this general notice posted at kernel.org for many years. I
> think the point is moot. Legally, there is exposure if their
> successors or owners
> of their estates bring action. Those outside the US would of course
> be subject to the laws of their jurisdiction. An attorney at FSF
> needs to review their
> code and render an opinion, but I think it will not be a problem.
>
> Jeff
>
>>
two years pass without their heirs bringing an action of some sort, then
under this
legal doctrine, the rights to use their code under GPLv3 would in all
probability pass consitutional muster. Again, someone needs to run this
by an attorney at the FSF and get a formal legal opinion rendered. The
Doctrine of Esstopel basically says that if you use something for some
period of time, and no one
objects, then you obtain certain rights to use it permenantly. Not
wanting to disrespect the wishes of the dead, I would attempt to contact
the successors of
their estates in any event and obtain permission, and if not possible,
then proceed.
Marc Perkel
Is it possible to have Linux be mostly GPL3 with parts of it GPL2? Or is
that just too insane to deal with?
Kyle Moffett
> Is it possible to have Linux be mostly GPL3 with parts of it GPL2?
> Or is that just too insane to deal with?
Well given that parts of the kernel are GPLv2-only, other parts are
GPLv2+, other parts are GPL/BSD, etc, I can't see how somebody using
a GPLv3-only or GPLv3+ license for some other part would be
problematic. If anything, the multiple licensing provides additional
code protection; we get the advantages of all the licenses, but if
any one license is found to be invalid, it does not break the
protection of the body of code itself.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
linux-os (Dick Johnson)
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 14:24:13, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> Is it possible to have Linux be mostly GPL3 with parts of it GPL2?
>> Or is that just too insane to deal with?
>
> Well given that parts of the kernel are GPLv2-only, other parts are
> GPLv2+, other parts are GPL/BSD, etc, I can't see how somebody using
> a GPLv3-only or GPLv3+ license for some other part would be
> problematic. If anything, the multiple licensing provides additional
> code protection; we get the advantages of all the licenses, but if
> any one license is found to be invalid, it does not break the
> protection of the body of code itself.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle Moffett
>
The original GPL said something about:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein." (Section 6).
Then, that __exact__ code was redistributed under Version 2
which further restricted rights, then additional versions
which further restricted rights. Now you are planning to
add additional restrictions? I don't think the present
so-called license would pass muster in any sane court in
the United States after the original licensed code was
plagiarized into a new binding license.
Simple test. Pretend the code was a music chart. Music
charts have been copyrighted since the start of the
copyright office. You write some music and, in its
copyright notice, you license anybody to use it as
long as they don't claim that they wrote it. Then
some licensing agency comes along and writes a new
license, effectively claiming ownership by claiming
control (the legal word is conversion). Do you think
for a moment that any court of law would uphold the
new license?
All of Linux has undergone such a conversion and it is
effectively owned by the "Free Software Foundation, Inc."
Of course RMS didn't tell you this when he appropriated
it, but it's done.
If code was written to be distributed under a certain
set of rules, just like sheet-music, nobody but the
writer or his assigns is allowed to change those
distribution rules at a later date. If those rules
are changed, they are invalid, i.e., unenforceable.
You want new rules, you rewrite the kernel from scratch
under the new rules and, you must not produce a derived
work (which has many meanings) in the process or the
new license is unenforceable as well.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.66 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to Deliver...@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
Chase Venters
>
> The original GPL said something about:
> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein." (Section 6).
> Then, that __exact__ code was redistributed under Version 2
> which further restricted rights, then additional versions
> which further restricted rights. Now you are planning to
> add additional restrictions? I don't think the present
> so-called license would pass muster in any sane court in
> the United States after the original licensed code was
> plagiarized into a new binding license.
>
Try doing your homework. GPL v1 says:
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any
> later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
> either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
> Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number
> of the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
> Software Foundation.
This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause
was added, but it was after the transition to v2).
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply about "conversion" or FSF
"owning" Linux. Choosing to release your software under the GPL, even when
the GPL is authored by a third party, does not make said third party the
copyright owner of your work.
If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is
if someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version
of the kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
- Chase
Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
> someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
> kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
Chase Venters
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>>
>> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
>> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
>> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
>> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
>> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
>
> Bzzt. Look closer.
>
> The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
> been valid.
I see. That makes perfect sense given that the GPL v2 is dated 1991...
this slipped my filters when I was grokking Dick's comment:
>>> The original GPL said something about:
>>> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
>>> exercise of the rights granted herein." (Section 6).
>>> Then, that __exact__ code was redistributed under Version 2
>>> which further restricted rights,
> The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
> language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
> actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
> about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
> want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
> source code.
I wasn't actually referring to the explanatory text; rather, clause 9 in
the section "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND
MODIFICATION". I suppose though upon reading clause 9 again the phrase "If
the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." is
kind of confusing.
Does the header of the GPL in COPYING ("GNU General Public
License; Version 2, June 1991") count as the "Program" specifying a
version number of the license?
> The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
> chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
> version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
Agreed.
> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
> license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
> so explicitly. Linux never did.
If the header of the GPL counts as the "Program's" specification of
the version number, I suppose you're right. I just don't really understand
why the language allowing _any_ version of the GPL if the version number
isn't specified then... when would any project ever publish a version of
the GPL license that has been modified to remove any mention of a version
number?
> So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
> tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
> so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
>
> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
>
> And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
> require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
> I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
> happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
> code.
>
Fair enough. I'm not trying to really argue for or against the kernel
switching versions... just trying to address some posts I've seen on LKML
that seem to get the licensing issue _really_ wrong (perhaps I'm now in
that group.)
Cheers,
Chase
Kurt Wall
>
> All of Linux has undergone such a conversion and it is
> effectively owned by the "Free Software Foundation, Inc."
> Of course RMS didn't tell you this when he appropriated
> it, but it's done.
WTF are you babbling about? Better yet, WTF are you smoking and may I
have some?
Kurt
--
If you give Congress a chance to vote on both sides of an issue, it
will always do it.
-- Les Aspin, D., Wisconsin
Paul Jakma
> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you
> want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you
> have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
you like".
regards,
--
Paul Jakma pa...@clubi.ie pa...@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
panic: kernel segmentation violation. core dumped (only kidding)
Jeff V. Merkey
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
>> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want
>> to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have
>> to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
>
>
> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
> you like".
Right.
:-)
Jeff
>
> regards,
Filip Brcic
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> > particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you
> > want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you
> > have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
>
> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
> you like".
That's right, but
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linux specifies version GPLv2 and only v2. Therefore, for Linux the GPLv2 is
the default.
--
Filip Brcic <br...@users.sourceforge.net>
WWWeb: http://purl.org/NET/brcha/home/
Jabber: br...@kdetalk.net
Jabber: br...@elitesecurity.org
Jabber: fbr...@gmail.com
ICQ# 40994923
Yahoo! brcha
MSN: br...@users.sourceforge.net
Jeff V. Merkey
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Filip Brcic wrote:
>
>> ???? Thursday 26 January 2006 18:59, Paul Jakma ?? ???????(??):
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
>>>> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you
>>>> want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you
>>>> have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
>>> you like".
>>
>>
>> That's right, but
>>
>> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
>> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
>> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>>
>> Linux specifies version GPLv2 and only v2. Therefore, for Linux the
>> GPLv2 is
>> the default.
>>
>
> Well, my understanding is that this clause wasn't always in COPYING.
> If not for section 9 of the GPL, then the default would have always
> been GPLv2 only.
>
> But since this clause was added after some time, one could argue that
> some code in Linux, even lacking a specific "or any later version"
> boilerplate, could be licensed under GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, etc.
>
> However, as I stated before -- since this clause is now present, the
> hairball going to GPLv3 would be copyright holders that submitted code
> under the GPLv2 Only heading. Since Linus added this clause, and has
> no doubt joined in many others submitting code since it was added,
> portions of the kernel *are* GPLv2 Only; hence, it would be
> impractical to legally migrate to GPLv3.
>
> I'll save from weighing in on whether or not GPLv3 is a good idea --
> this is just my evaluation of the facts I see before us.
>
> Cheers,
> Chase
Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code whether
its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared with
COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
want.
Jeff
Paul Jakma
> Linux specifies version GPLv2 and only v2. Therefore, for Linux the
> GPLv2 is the default.
Note that I didn't say otherwise. I was merely commenting on Linus'
interpretation of the GPL generally.
Btw, with respect to the Linux kernel "v2 only" preamble, Alan Cox's
email earlier in this thread is worth reading.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma pa...@clubi.ie pa...@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Man's horizons are bounded by his vision.
Diego Calleja
Paul Jakma <pa...@clubi.ie> escribió:
> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
> you like".
That's not exactly what it says.
The real text is (emphasis mine): "_IF_ the Program does not specify
a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
published by the Free Software Foundation."
Before that it says: "Each version is given a distinguishing version
number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License
which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
later version published by the Free Software Foundation"
IOW, such rules will aply if no version has been specified or
if has the "any later version" addon. Which is not the case:
I can read "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991".
Chase Venters
> El Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:59:01 +0000 (GMT),
> Paul Jakma <pa...@clubi.ie> escribió:
>
>> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
>> you like".
>
> That's not exactly what it says.
>
> The real text is (emphasis mine): "_IF_ the Program does not specify
> a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
> published by the Free Software Foundation."
>
>
> Before that it says: "Each version is given a distinguishing version
> number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License
> which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
> following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
> later version published by the Free Software Foundation"
>
>
> IOW, such rules will aply if no version has been specified or
> if has the "any later version" addon. Which is not the case:
> I can read "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991".
>
It's possible there may be something I'm not understanding. I do recognize
that the license has a version number on it.
But then again, so did GPLv1. And it also had the same section 9 clause.
So the question is - why would the GPL need a clause that says "You can
use any version of the GPL if the Program does not specify a version" when
every official version of the GPL includes a version number? Are they
expecting authors to strip the version number header in order to somehow
take advantage of section 9?
Cheers,
Chase
Paul Jakma
> The real text is (emphasis mine): "_IF_ the Program does not
> specify a version number of this License, you may choose any
> version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
> Before that it says: "Each version is given a distinguishing
> version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this
> License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the
> option of following the terms and conditions either of that version
> or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation"
> IOW, such rules will aply if no version has been specified or if
> has the "any later version" addon. Which is not the case: I can
> read "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991".
That refers to the version of the GPL licence. That is specific to
the licence document and distinct from any text where "the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it ..."
(one suggestion for doing so is given: include a Preamble).
regards,
--
Paul Jakma pa...@clubi.ie pa...@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
"And I want a bike and a monkey and a friend for the monkey."
--Ralph Wiggum
Brother's Little Helper (Episode AABF22)
Marc Perkel
if I can define the problem and the issues.
First - some people think all of Linux is under GPLv2 - but some people
seem to think it's really GPLv2 or later. That needs to be resolved. Can
different parts of Linux be controlled by multiple licenses. If so -
that could create confusion because someone would have to agree to all
the licenses within Linux in order to use it. The alternative is to say
it's all GPLv2 and exclude GPLv3 from inclusion. Do we want to do that.
Second - is GPLv3 Linux compatible. If Linux were to start over today
would it pick GPLv2 or GPLv3? Is there anything in GPLv3 that is not
Linux compatible. I would at least like to see GPLv3 (final draft) to be
100% Linux compatible.
Suppose GPLv3 were Linux compatible and many existing authors and new
authors adopted GPLv3 but dead authors and some stubborn people and
people who can't be found are still at GPLv2. Lets also assume that
critical parts of Linux code are licensed in both worlds. What dos that
mean? Does that mean that GPLv3 prevails?
This is something that might be worth doing some serious legal work on
because if we do it wrong it could bite us hard in the future. But I
want to try to properly raise the question here so that we all at least
understand the problem.
My 2 centz ....
Diego Calleja
Chase Venters <chase....@clientec.com> escribió:
> So the question is - why would the GPL need a clause that says "You c
an
> use any version of the GPL if the Program does not specify a version"
when
> every official version of the GPL includes a version number? Are they
> expecting authors to strip the version number header in order to some
how
> take advantage of section 9?
That's what I though. The only sane reason I can find is that many
projects don't even include a copy of the GPL and just say "this
is licensed under the GNU Public License"
Chase Venters
> There seems to be some confusion about licensing. I'm just going to see if I
> can define the problem and the issues.
>
> First - some people think all of Linux is under GPLv2 - but some people seem
> to think it's really GPLv2 or later. That needs to be resolved. Can different
> parts of Linux be controlled by multiple licenses. If so - that could create
> confusion because someone would have to agree to all the licenses within
> Linux in order to use it. The alternative is to say it's all GPLv2 and
> exclude GPLv3 from inclusion. Do we want to do that.
I don't think there are any questions about what the "whole" of Linux is
governed under. It's governed by whatever the most 'restrictive' license
usage is, which is 'GPLv2 Only'. (The fact that GPLv2 Only doesn't apply
to the whole kernel or perhaps even to some past kernels doesn't matter -
you still can't package the whole as GPLv3)
The only discussion I see taking place any longer is basically irrelevant
to Linux and GPLv3 - it concerns whether or not other, older kernel
releases were legally GPLv2 Only or not. A disagreement on either the
intent, mechanism or action of parts of the GPL license, if you will.
> Second - is GPLv3 Linux compatible. If Linux were to start over today would
> it pick GPLv2 or GPLv3? Is there anything in GPLv3 that is not Linux
> compatible. I would at least like to see GPLv3 (final draft) to be 100% Linux
> compatible.
What does Linux compatible mean? Linus expressed some frustrations with
some of the new terms, so perhaps in that sense the new license is not
compatible.
If I'm reading him right, he doesn't want to restrain vendors like TiVO
from using the kernel and subsequently refusing to provide the public with
encryption keys necessary to build kernels to run on that hardware (for
example).
> Suppose GPLv3 were Linux compatible and many existing authors and new authors
> adopted GPLv3 but dead authors and some stubborn people and people who can't
> be found are still at GPLv2. Lets also assume that critical parts of Linux
> code are licensed in both worlds. What dos that mean? Does that mean that
> GPLv3 prevails?
It's mental masturbation at this point. Suppose Linus approved of going to
GPLv3... there may be some little technical gotchas in terms of "dead
authors", but in that hypothetical, how many people would really be
worried that the descendents of these dead authors would actively act to
stop Linux from being distributed under the new license?
The bigger issue is that no matter where you fall on GPL's section 9,
_lots_ of code is undoubtedly GPLv2 only. These living authors would have
to agree to GPLv3, and as we now know, Linus does not.
> This is something that might be worth doing some serious legal work on
> because if we do it wrong it could bite us hard in the future. But I want to
> try to properly raise the question here so that we all at least understand
> the problem.
Why? I think it's pretty much a dead issue.
Cheers,
Chase
Marc Perkel
Chase Venters wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> There seems to be some confusion about licensing. I'm just going to
>> see if I can define the problem and the issues.
>>
>> First - some people think all of Linux is under GPLv2 - but some
>> people seem to think it's really GPLv2 or later. That needs to be
>> resolved. Can different parts of Linux be controlled by multiple
>> licenses. If so - that could create confusion because someone would
>> have to agree to all the licenses within Linux in order to use it.
>> The alternative is to say it's all GPLv2 and exclude GPLv3 from
>> inclusion. Do we want to do that.
>
> I don't think there are any questions about what the "whole" of Linux
> is governed under. It's governed by whatever the most 'restrictive'
> license usage is, which is 'GPLv2 Only'. (The fact that GPLv2 Only
> doesn't apply to the whole kernel or perhaps even to some past kernels
> doesn't matter - you still can't package the whole as GPLv3)
If I write some code and that code becomes a critical part of the linux
kernel and my code is GPLv3 then no one could use Linux unless they
removed my code. (And all GPLv3 code) - Thus the inclusion of GPLv3 code
would force the whole kernel to be effectively GPLv3. Unless Linus says
nothing gets included unless it's GPLv2.
>
> The only discussion I see taking place any longer is basically
> irrelevant to Linux and GPLv3 - it concerns whether or not other,
> older kernel releases were legally GPLv2 Only or not. A disagreement
> on either the intent, mechanism or action of parts of the GPL license,
> if you will.
>
>> Second - is GPLv3 Linux compatible. If Linux were to start over today
>> would it pick GPLv2 or GPLv3? Is there anything in GPLv3 that is not
>> Linux compatible. I would at least like to see GPLv3 (final draft) to
>> be 100% Linux compatible.
>
> What does Linux compatible mean? Linus expressed some frustrations
> with some of the new terms, so perhaps in that sense the new license
> is not compatible.
In this context Linux compatible means a license that Linus is happy with.
>
> If I'm reading him right, he doesn't want to restrain vendors like
> TiVO from using the kernel and subsequently refusing to provide the
> public with encryption keys necessary to build kernels to run on that
> hardware (for example).
Yes - so perhaps GPLv3 is not Linux compatible. If so - then GPLv3 needs
to be changed or excluded.
>
>> Suppose GPLv3 were Linux compatible and many existing authors and new
>> authors adopted GPLv3 but dead authors and some stubborn people and
>> people who can't be found are still at GPLv2. Lets also assume that
>> critical parts of Linux code are licensed in both worlds. What dos
>> that mean? Does that mean that GPLv3 prevails?
>
> It's mental masturbation at this point. Suppose Linus approved of
> going to GPLv3... there may be some little technical gotchas in terms
> of "dead authors", but in that hypothetical, how many people would
> really be worried that the descendents of these dead authors would
> actively act to stop Linux from being distributed under the new license?
Lawyers of big corporations. Greedy decendents who pull an SCO.
>
> The bigger issue is that no matter where you fall on GPL's section 9,
> _lots_ of code is undoubtedly GPLv2 only. These living authors would
> have to agree to GPLv3, and as we now know, Linus does not.
But if the Kernel contains GPLv3 code then that part of the kernel is
subject to those restrictions. If the code is critical then it
affectively makes Linux subjet to GPLv3. Perhaps the only way to avoid
that is to require the same license for all kernel code?
>
>> This is something that might be worth doing some serious legal work
>> on because if we do it wrong it could bite us hard in the future. But
>> I want to try to properly raise the question here so that we all at
>> least understand the problem.
>
> Why? I think it's pretty much a dead issue.
>
>
When lawyers get involved there is no such thing as a dead issue ..... sigh!
Chase Venters
> If I write some code and that code becomes a critical part of the linux
> kernel and my code is GPLv3 then no one could use Linux unless they removed
> my code. (And all GPLv3 code) - Thus the inclusion of GPLv3 code would force
> the whole kernel to be effectively GPLv3. Unless Linus says nothing gets
> included unless it's GPLv2.
>
I assume that Linus's dissatisfaction with the GPLv3 means that this
licensing characteristic is implied. I suppose it might be valuable to
have an explicit declaration on this issue.
As for the rest of my message, my remarks and assumptions about how Linux
is governed by the most restrictive clause apply to today's kernel (ie, no
GPLv3 code at all).
I was honestly hoping that this debate wouldn't ignite until when we were
much closer to having the real, final license. Or perhaps that it would
ignite with the purpose of participating in the development of GPLv3.
Neither seems to be the case, and so notwithstanding your concers about
people merging in GPLv3 code, if the issue's not dead already, it's
probably frozen until the real, live GPLv3 gets released.
Cheers,
Chase
linux-os (Dick Johnson)
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> If I write some code and that code becomes a critical part of the linux
>> kernel and my code is GPLv3 then no one could use Linux unless they removed
>> my code. (And all GPLv3 code) - Thus the inclusion of GPLv3 code would force
>> the whole kernel to be effectively GPLv3. Unless Linus says nothing gets
>> included unless it's GPLv2.
>>
>> [more to this effect]
>
> I assume that Linus's dissatisfaction with the GPLv3 means that this
> licensing characteristic is implied. I suppose it might be valuable to
> have an explicit declaration on this issue.
>
> As for the rest of my message, my remarks and assumptions about how Linux
> is governed by the most restrictive clause apply to today's kernel (ie, no
> GPLv3 code at all).
>
> I was honestly hoping that this debate wouldn't ignite until when we were
> much closer to having the real, final license. Or perhaps that it would
> ignite with the purpose of participating in the development of GPLv3.
> Neither seems to be the case, and so notwithstanding your concers about
> people merging in GPLv3 code, if the issue's not dead already, it's
> probably frozen until the real, live GPLv3 gets released.
>
No. It's dead. Linus says it's dead. It's dead.
QUOTE..."
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
"...ENDQUOTE
> Cheers,
> Chase
Attempting to change existing licensing can invalidate all
licensing. The less done, the better.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.66 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to Deliver...@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
Marc Perkel
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
> not allow conversion.
>
> Conversion isn't going to happen.
>
> Linus
>
>
Just for clarification. What you are saying is that anyone who insists
on contributing to the kernel under GPLv3 - that code would be
prohibited from being included in the kernel? That to contribute to the
kernel you must contribute under the terms presently in place?
I'm just asking for clarification.
I don't have a GPLv3 opinion yet since it's a changing document. But I
do see a need for a consistent licensing of the components of Linux to
avoid confusion and I'm worried that if any GPLv3 gets in then it will
be all GPLv3 so you would have to prohibity that if you are going to
stop Linux from becoming GPLv3 by default.
Al Viro
> Just for clarification. What you are saying is that anyone who insists
> on contributing to the kernel under GPLv3 - that code would be
> prohibited from being included in the kernel? That to contribute to the
> kernel you must contribute under the terms presently in place?
"terms compatible with those for code already in place". Which is obviously
true for any project, since otherwise you end up with result that can not
be distributed at all.
Marc Perkel
contradict GPLv2.
GPLv3 is more RESTRICTIVE than v2. With v2 you didn't have the new
anti-DRM and anti-patent restrictions. The original license says
somewhere that you can't change the license to be more restrictive.
None of us like patents and DRM but language that places new
restrictions on software might not be GPLv2 compatible. Stallman might
need to call his new license something else than GPL if he's going to
add language that adds restrictions.
I can see an argument where GPLv2 prohibits GPLv3.
Olivier Galibert
> Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
> and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
> and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
> released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
> versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
> only.
Since I'm sure you seriously did your homework, I'll just assume you
mistyped "2.4.0-test8".
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=96844578906748&w=2
OG.
Rik van Riel
> I think that subverting the efforts of companies and artists to protect
> their works is unnaceptable.
That all depends on what they are protecting their works against.
If they were protecting their works against illegal copying, that
protection should indeed not be circumvented.
On the other hand, if all they are "protecting against" is lawful
and legitimate behaviour by joe six-pack consumers, I do not see
why those efforts should be protected or helped...
> It should be noted that DRM is not inherently bad,
It should also be noted that DRM does not protect works against
copying - the one thing that DRM was supposed to achieve.
--
All Rights Reversed
David Schwartz
> Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
> and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
> and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
> released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
> versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
> only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
> already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
> language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code whether
> its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared with
> COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
> want.
>
> Jeff
Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
can't re-release it under a more restrictive license. Read section 6
carefully:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
Notice that the code is licensed to you by the "original licensor", not by
the distributor. The inability to choose a later GPL version is definitely a
"further restriction".
At least, that's how I read it.
DS
Dave Jones
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license. Read section 6
> carefully:
I suggest you read section 9, even more carefully. It's not an additional
restriction, it's a option that the license provides, which Linus chose.
Also read the preface of COPYING in the root directory of the kernel source.
(That has been there for a _long_ time btw).
Dave
David Schwartz
> I suggest you read section 9, even more carefully. It's not an additional
> restriction, it's a option that the license provides, which Linus chose.
Linus can choose the license for his own code. He can also set the rules
for contributions to Linux and set up the assumed licensing terms when code
is offered for inclusion. He cannot, however, change the license on any code
he did not write. He cannot even grant a license to any code he did not
write.
From section 6, "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based
on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
The grant of license does not come from the person doing the distributing,
it comes from the original licensor, which is the original author of each
portion. The license grant is automatic, so you can't modify it or affect it
in any way.
DS
Dave Jones
> He cannot, however, change the license on any code he did not write.
Explain how exactly Linus is 'changing' anything ?
The license of the project is clearly stated in the top-level
of the tree.
If the person submitting code (to *any* project) doesn't read the
license that's the submitters problem, not the project maintainer.
Dave
Valdis.K...@vt.edu
> With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
> I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
> owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
> others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
> usually not the artist).
Actually, in the US, it is in fact illegal to bypass a protection scheme
*even if the content is something you have legal rights to*.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained
in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
The rest of 1201(a)(1) talks about getting an exemption, good for 3 years only,
to allow you to bypass a control for a non-infringing use.
Got that? You have to apply for special permission to bypass to get data that
you have rights to use....
Diego Calleja
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> escribió:
> is offered for inclusion. He cannot, however, change the license on a
ny code
> he did not write. He cannot even grant a license to any code he did n
ot
And he's not doing it, the COPYING file applies for all the code which
doesn't specifies its own license.
Notice that COPYING has this: "Also note that the only valid version of
the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version
of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever),
unless explicitly otherwise stated."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(IOW, people should care about their own code, but obviously people
usually licenses their code under the same license the project uses,
except some drivers that use a dual-license scheme etc)
sean
Marc Perkel <ma...@perkel.com> wrote:
> Trying to look at this from a legal point of view. GPLv3 might actually
> contradict GPLv2.
>
> GPLv3 is more RESTRICTIVE than v2. With v2 you didn't have the new
> anti-DRM and anti-patent restrictions. The original license says
> somewhere that you can't change the license to be more restrictive.
>
> None of us like patents and DRM but language that places new
> restrictions on software might not be GPLv2 compatible. Stallman might
> need to call his new license something else than GPL if he's going to
> add language that adds restrictions.
>
> I can see an argument where GPLv2 prohibits GPLv3.
>
As the _owner_ of the code, you can set whatever license(s) you choose.
You don't lose your copyright just because you've granted the rest of
us the right to use your code under the terms of the GPL.
For instance, licensing your code to the world as GPL does not mean you
can't also license it to another group of people under XYZ terms. The
XYZ license may be totally incompatible with the GPL and have many more
restrictions (a prohibition against distribution for instance). Anyone
who has agreed to the XYZ license with you, could also go grab a copy
of the GPL'd code, but would then have to abide by _all_ the GPL
conditions.
Similarly, the owner of each piece of Linux code is free to make the
code he released under GPLv2 available now under v3 without any
conflict or violation of the prohibition against additional restrictions.
Of course, older versions of the code would still be available
under v2 as well; not even the owner can revoke that.
Sean
Arjan van de Ven
> > Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions when he
> > and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
> > and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
> > released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today, all new
> > versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is GPLv2
> > only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
> > already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
> > language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code whether
> > its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared with
> > COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
> > want.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
you use the word "AND". Everyone else uses the word "OR". The word OR
means you have a choice, basically the code is dual licensed with GPLv2
and "any later version", and you can pick whichever one you want.
However if you combine it with the kernel, the v2 is chosen for you,
just by virtue of the license of the code that is v2-only. Eg: dual
licensed code in the kernel automatically picks the GPLv2 side.
If the wording was "AND", you would be right, but then both licenses
would have to apply at the same time, which gets really nasty if there
are conflicts between them (and it looks like there are)
Valdis.K...@vt.edu
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write. If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license
One thing to remember is that as a *practical* matter, there are *two* sets
of copyrights attached to the code (at least under US law). Each contributor
has their rights to their code - Alan Cox has vast tracts of code, I have
a few dozen lines of bugfixes, and so on.
But equally important is the copyright that Linus has on the kernel as
a whole as a a compilation (see 17 USC 103). As a practical matter, if you
don't like Linus's license for the compilation, you're stuck with small sections
under the fair use rules. Similarly, Linus can't include anything under his
compilation unless the licenses are compatible...
Also, it means that even if you did manage to get all the copyright holders
for the code to agree to "GPL v2 or v3", Linus still holds the trump card on
the compilation.....
Bernd Petrovitsch
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:42:24 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
>
> > With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
> > I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
> > owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
> > others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
> > usually not the artist).
>
> Actually, in the US, it is in fact illegal to bypass a protection scheme
> *even if the content is something you have legal rights to*.
Well, the so-called "land of the free". SCNR .....
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
>
> 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
>
> (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
^^^^^^^^^^
> controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
-) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
it, it is obviously not "effective".
-) If I (and no one else) cannot circumvent it, the laws/court decisions
as such is basically pointless because it doesn't limit or hinder
anything.
And we have no definition (in the laws) hereover whatever "effective"
should mean and hoe *I* can determine (which a sufficient large chance
of getting it right) if a given protection scheme must be considered
"effective".
Don't get me wrong, I understand how it is meant what such rules should
achieve an, but I request from lawyers (as such) that they write
laws/court decisions down in an unambigous way (for a non-law person -
remember that laws affect *all* people so every law and court decision
should IMHO readable and understandable by the average citizen).
And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if we
want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts which
cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.
[..]
> Got that? You have to apply for special permission to bypass to get data that
> you have rights to use....
Yes, because that is the primary goal of all of the laws in that area in
last years: To effectively take away legal rights from you that you
actually legally have (or better: had).
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
Bas Westerbaan
>
> And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if
> we
> want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts
> which
> cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.
Ambiguous laws are compromizes. They are required sometimes. Who will
prevail depends on who can affort the best lawyer in court.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love readable laws, but with the current
politics it isn't possible.
--
Bas Westerbaan
http://blog.w-nz.com/
GPG Pub. Keys: http://w-nz.com/r/f
Bernd Petrovitsch
> > should IMHO readable and understandable by the average citizen).
> >
> > And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if
> > we
> > want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts
> > which
> > cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.
>
> Ambiguous laws are compromizes. They are required sometimes. Who will
Technically, all laws are ambigous (since you do not have them based on
clear definitions as in mathemnatic and the like but only natural
language).
But I have a problem with that extreme type of ambigousness that
actually is IMHO already a contradiction.
And remember: Continental Europe doesn't have case law (except the mess
and intentions produced by the EPO). So the law system here *needs*
relatively clear laws which are of course interpreted by judges in court
and clarified with court decisions. But a court decision actually can
not make a law.
And now explain to me how a judge with a technical knowledge as a
typical 50 year old Win* user should decide if a given "access control"
is "effective" or not?
Of course they have external specialists (how are they callen in
English?) in court who try to explain and give the (fair) opinion on the
given case. But usually each party gets such a quote supporting their
side. So how should the judge actually decide correctly?
And IMHO it doesn't work out to define the judges decision as
"correct" (like usual in the law system as such) if it is technically
incorrect.
> prevail depends on who can affort the best lawyer in court.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'd love readable laws, but with the current
> politics it isn't possible.
It may be worse than with other politics, but layers are not interested
in readable laws.
You can make much more money out of a system where you need secret
languages (think of the catholic church in early medieval age with
everything in Latin) .....
Bernd, fairly off-topic now. Sorry.
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
-
Simon Oosthoek
> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
> general.
I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
the Linux kernel.
> And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
> require people to make their private signing keys available, for
> example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is
> going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to
> convert any of my code.
I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I
assume you're referring to this part:
GPLv3-draft1:
> (...)
> Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or
> authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source
> code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or
> principal context of use, such that its functioning in all
> circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by
> your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary
> to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code
> need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies
> the user already has it.
> (...)
I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make
it difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that. I'm
not sure this would affect the Linux kernel at all and I don't think it
would require any of your private keys to be disclosed at all. If you
would sign or encrypt the kernel distribution with your private key,
everyone would need to have access to your public key, but that's the
whole idea anyway.
Cheers
Simon
Olivier Galibert
> > (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
> for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
> -) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
> it, it is obviously not "effective".
Wrong definition, try again. "Effective" has multiple meanings in
english, one of them being "existing in fact, not theorical, real".
Check wordnet, it's getting impressively usable nowadays.
In other words, "effective"'s meaning can either move towards
"efficient" or "actual/existing", depending on the context.
OG.
Olivier Galibert
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license.
Yes he can. The authors licensed the code under _multiple_ licenses
(even if some do not exist yet, which can be amusing, legally), each
of the existing one(s) allowing redistribution if you accept it. He
does not have to accept _all_ of them to redistribute, _one_ of them
is enough. And none of them allow to put the code under a different
license, in contrast to say the LGPL.
OG.
Al Viro
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
> > individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
> >general.
>
> I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
> quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
> people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
> they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
> saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
> the Linux kernel.
Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is incompatible
with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
Simon Oosthoek
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:46:17AM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
>>> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
>>> general.
>> I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
>> quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
>> people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
>> they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
>> saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
>> the Linux kernel.
>
> Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is incompatible
> with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the "or"
should be an "and"? ;-), v2 in the kernel and v3(or any later version,
etc.), if the code is used outside of the kernel, it would "fall back
to" v3+ as soon as it's taken out of the kernel and used in something else.
If I'd want to contribute code to the kernel, I'd have to comply with
the license of the kernel, which is v2 of the GPL. If I would actually
prefer my code to be licensed under v3 or higher, I'd have to specify
that my code is only licensed under v2 for the kernel to humour Linus
Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel, but in all other ways
the code is used, I only grant a license to copy under the conditions of
the GPL v3 or higher. I don't see why that would affect the distribution
of the kernel at all.
Cheers
Simon
--
phone:(+31|0)53 4810319
fax: (+31|0)53 4810333
simon.o...@ti-wmc.nl
http://www.ti-wmc.nl/
Olivier Galibert
> If I'd want to contribute code to the kernel, I'd have to comply with
> the license of the kernel, which is v2 of the GPL. If I would actually
> prefer my code to be licensed under v3 or higher, I'd have to specify
> that my code is only licensed under v2 for the kernel to humour Linus
> Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel, but in all other ways
> the code is used, I only grant a license to copy under the conditions of
> the GPL v3 or higher. I don't see why that would affect the distribution
> of the kernel at all.
"GPLv2 only for the kernel" is a different license than "GPLv2" and is
incompatible with GPLv2.
OG.
Simon Oosthoek
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>> If I'd want to contribute code to the kernel, I'd have to comply with
>> the license of the kernel, which is v2 of the GPL. If I would actually
>> prefer my code to be licensed under v3 or higher, I'd have to specify
>> that my code is only licensed under v2 for the kernel to humour Linus
>> Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel, but in all other ways
>> the code is used, I only grant a license to copy under the conditions of
>> the GPL v3 or higher. I don't see why that would affect the distribution
>> of the kernel at all.
>
> "GPLv2 only for the kernel" is a different license than "GPLv2" and is
> incompatible with GPLv2.
>
hmm, so if I want to contribute to the kernel, but prefer my code to be
licensed under GPLv3 or higher, I would be unable to submit it to the
kernel unless I "lower my standards" to GPLv2 or higher?
If someone wants to use that code elsewhere, he can take it from the
kernel and re-use it in a GPLv2 project and further, which may violate
the terms of GPLv3 and would therefore conflict with my interests.
Of course, this may be purely theoretical, but it could block people
from submitting code to the kernel in order avoid the v2 GPL license.
From this, I think it could be concluded that it might turn out to be
quite harmful if code under GPLv3+ cannot be combined with the linux
kernel...
/Simon
PS, IANAL
Chris Bergeron
> Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:46:17AM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
>>>> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
>>>> general.
>>> I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
>>> quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
>>> people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
>>> they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
>>> saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
>>> the Linux kernel.
>>
>> Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is
>> incompatible
>> with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
> I'd have to specify that my code is only licensed under v2 for the
> kernel to humour Linus Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel,
> but in all other ways the code is used, I
I think what the "Bzzert" is implying is that once you license your code
under the GPL v2 for the kernel use, it's then licensed that way for
distribution. You can't prohibit people from using it in other contexts
with that license or it violates the GPL v2 license and then can't be
distributed with the kernel, either. If I'm reading that correctly.
To cross license you'd have to allow either license for any use, really,
as long as the use complies with the license. Adding 'if the code is
used outside of the kernel, it would "fall back to" v3+' would violate
the GPL v2.
-- Chris
Kyle Moffett
> really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the
> "fall back to" v3+ as soon as it's taken out of the kernel and used
> in something else.
You cannot say "This code is GPLv2 only in the context of the
kernel". You may say "This code is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv3".
The reasoning behind this is as follows: If I take a kernel tree,
and apply a large patch that removes all of the code except for your
driver, the result is perfectly legal to distribute under GPLv2
(because I took a combined GPLv2 source, applied any modification I
felt like (such as deleting everything except one of the drivers),
and therefore get a GPLv2 source.
One thing I am not sure about: If you have a kernel which contains
code licensed under GPLv2 only and code licensed under GPLv3 only,
would it be redistributable at all? If so, under what conditions/
terms? IANAL, so take the following with a couple pounds of salt;
since GPLv2 says something like "You cannot add any additional
restrictions", and GPLv3 adds additional restrictions, it might be
true that the composite is not legally redistributable even though
the two individual parts are, no?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
They _will_ find opposing experts to say it isn't, if you push hard
enough the wrong way. Idiots with a PhD aren't hard to buy.
-- Rob Landley
Al Viro
> hmm, so if I want to contribute to the kernel, but prefer my code to be
> licensed under GPLv3 or higher, I would be unable to submit it to the
> kernel unless I "lower my standards" to GPLv2 or higher?
>
> If someone wants to use that code elsewhere, he can take it from the
> kernel and re-use it in a GPLv2 project and further, which may violate
> the terms of GPLv3 and would therefore conflict with my interests.
>
> Of course, this may be purely theoretical, but it could block people
> from submitting code to the kernel in order avoid the v2 GPL license.
>
> From this, I think it could be concluded that it might turn out to be
> quite harmful if code under GPLv3+ cannot be combined with the linux
> kernel...
That's GPL working *as* *intended*. No, you can't create a derivative
of GPLv2 program and prohibit the use of your modifications in other
GPLv2 programs. It's not just "Linus won't accept it upstream"; it's
"you can't even distribute such fork yourself". And it's 100% intentional -
that's what GPL is about.
As for the harm... We somehow survived years of similar "harmful" situation.
No, you can't put proprietary code in kernel and prohibit other GPLv2
projects to reuse it. Yes, it would theoretically turn some authors of
extremely valuable (but never materializing) code away. And yes, there had
been very similar whining and dire warnings. Nothing new here...
Simon Oosthoek
>
> That's GPL working *as* *intended*. No, you can't create a derivative
> of GPLv2 program and prohibit the use of your modifications in other
> GPLv2 programs. It's not just "Linus won't accept it upstream"; it's
> "you can't even distribute such fork yourself". And it's 100% intentional -
> that's what GPL is about.
I think I understand the GPL, but I'm not a lawyer :-)
> As for the harm... We somehow survived years of similar "harmful" situation.
> No, you can't put proprietary code in kernel and prohibit other GPLv2
> projects to reuse it. Yes, it would theoretically turn some authors of
> extremely valuable (but never materializing) code away. And yes, there had
> been very similar whining and dire warnings. Nothing new here...
The comparison between proprietary and GPLv3 code is disconcerting and
strangely funny in this way :-/
What I think *is* new here is that some people would consider GPLv3 a
logical extension of GPLv2 (in the sense of enhancing freedom), but if
it turns out that it's so different from GPLv2 that GPLv3 code cannot be
mixed into the v2 kernel, which does stem from the same philosophy.
I suppose I'll just wait for the next draft and check again...
thanks for the feedback!
/Simon
--
phone:(+31|0)53 4810319
fax: (+31|0)53 4810333
simon.o...@ti-wmc.nl
http://www.ti-wmc.nl/
Valdis.K...@vt.edu
> On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, Valdis.K...@vt.edu wrote:
> > 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
> >
> > (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition conta
ined
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
> for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
> -) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
> it, it is obviously not "effective".
As Skylarov found out when he got into a pissing match with Adobe, ROT-13
qualifies as an "effective access control" as far as the law is concerned.
David Schwartz
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:37:28PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > He cannot, however, change the license on any code he did not write.
> Explain how exactly Linus is 'changing' anything ?
> The license of the project is clearly stated in the top-level
> of the tree.
I never said that he is or was. I said that he cannot.
> If the person submitting code (to *any* project) doesn't read the
> license that's the submitters problem, not the project maintainer.
Definitely. And I believe that you have every right to assume that code
that is submitted to you without contradictory information is submitted
under the same license as governs the project it is a contribution to.
The point is, nothing can change the license of code contributed under the
GPL except a relicense from the original author. The GPL is a special type
of license wherein you always get your license to use from the original
author. So nobody can ever change the license of any code you submit under
the GPL. This is spelled out clearly in section 6:
"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient AUTOMATICALLY receives a license FROM THE
ORIGINAL LICENSOR to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions." (emphasis added)
So when you receive a copy of Linux, each piece of code and modification
thereto is licensed to you from its particular original author. No author or
distributor has any power to change that (other than to offer you their own
code or contributions under a different license).
DS
David Schwartz
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 06:15:54PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't
> > write. If the
> > authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later
> > version", Linus
> > can't re-release it under a more restrictive license.
> Yes he can.
No. He can't.
> The authors licensed the code under _multiple_ licenses
> (even if some do not exist yet, which can be amusing, legally), each
> of the existing one(s) allowing redistribution if you accept it.
Correct. However, all the GPL-based ones grant rights *automatically* upon
distribution. "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on
the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
and conditions"
> He
> does not have to accept _all_ of them to redistribute, _one_ of them
> is enough.
Correct. However, the recipient gets the benefit of all GPL-style licenses.
That's what clause 6 says, particularly the "automatically" part and the
"from the original licensor" part.
> And none of them allow to put the code under a different
> license, in contrast to say the LGPL.
Correct. The grant of GPL license is automatic on distribution, and it is
from the original author to the recipient.
DS
Olivier Galibert
> Correct. However, all the GPL-based ones grant rights *automatically* upon
> distribution.
Of course not. The license only applies if you accept it, and you
don't have to. It's not an EULA.
OG.
David Schwartz
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:50:43AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Correct. However, all the GPL-based ones grant rights
> > *automatically* upon distribution.
> Of course not. The license only applies if you accept it, and you
> don't have to. It's not an EULA.
You are correct that the license only applies if you accept it, but you are
incorrect if you think that you can fail to accept the GPL and thus restrict
the rights of those you distribute works to under some other license.
Perhaps you're thinking that if I take a work that's dual-licensed under
the GPL and some other license, then distribute it under that other license,
the recipients don't get the GPL rights. That is not correct. GPL section 6
clearly states that the license is between the original author and the
ultimate recipient. The distributor has no say or control over this
automatic grant of license.
Section 6 clears states that this license is:
1) Automatic, not subject to anyone's discretion.
2) From the original licensor, not the distributor.
3) Under these terms and conditions, that is, the GPL.
The case is the same if you modify the work and then distribute it. All
recipients still receive GPL rights from the original authors to the
respective contributions of those authors. You cannot stop it. It is
automatic, and it is from the original authors who agreed to give GPL rights
to all recipients when they placed their works under the GPL.
DS
Jeff V. Merkey
This language constitutes conversion and violates about a dozen laws in
a dozen states. This whole recipricol rights
grant language would have to be litigated, and I don't think anyone will
know the outcome. I think it would end up
with the Judge saying "You guys take your stuff and go, and you GPL
people take your stuff and go, and neither one of
you can distribute the others IP".
Jeff
Thomas Horsten
> And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
> require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
> I wouldn't do it.
Linus, I think you are missing the point here. I see this provision as one
of the most important fixes in GPL v3. It might not be perfect in the way
it is presented in the draft, but the rationale is certainly laudable.
This closes a very serious loophole, that in certain situations renders
the GPLv2 almost worthless. The problem is embedded systems, but
especially cellphones.
A typical smartphone has a baseband processor (running the GSM stack under
a proprietary OS - let's call it the Baseband OS) and an application
processor (running the PDA features and GUI, for example Symbian OS or
Linux, let's call it the Application OS). Newer phones use a microkernel
architecture where the two OS's each run as tasks under a microkernel so
that a single CPU can be shared, but that's not relevant for this point.
The practice for many phone manufacturers is to heavily encrypt and sign
all ROM images that go on the phone. They do this for several reasons, but
mostly to prevent end-users from modifying the baseband code (where things
like SIM-locks and network locks are stored) or changing the IMEI number
of stolen phones.
However, most manufacturers extend this protectin to also encompass the
PDA-side code. This is understandable (to an extent) where the operating
system is proprietary or licensed (e.g. Symbian OS) and not available for
end-users to modify in any case.
But when Linux is used instead (something that most major handset
manufacturers are working on at the moment), this whole picture changes.
Suddenly the whole point of "Free Software" goes away. Because the handset
manufacturer modifies, adapts and uses the Linux kernel (for free),
without having to give anything back to the community. Yes, they have to
make their modified source available, but there is no way a casual user
(read: someone not a member of the phone-unlocking mafia) can update the
kernel with a modified, recompiled version.
But it goes further. The manufacturer is free to embed "trusted
computing" technology into the kernel (e.g. digital signing of all
executables that can run on the phone), as long as the encryption
technology is included in the kernel (they can even embed the
public key in the published sources, and you have no way of
obtaining the secret key) - thereby preventing the user from running ANY
code on the phone not pre-approved by the manufacturer.
Their main motivation for doing this is basically to protect the mobile
network operators' revenue, by preventing (or at least limiting)
installation of things such as VoIP clients and instant messenger systems
that could lead towards an "open TCP/IP" infrastructure that all the
operators fear so much.
The prime example of this is what is already implemented is Symbian OS. In
Version 9, used by the latest handsets from Nokia and Sony Ericsson, it is
impossible to install applications that are not signed by an independent
testing house, something that effectively locks small businesses and
independent hobby coders out of the market. There are even certain
"capabilities", needed for example to implement networking protocols, that
can only be signed if approved by the phone manufacturer.
The only way to prevent Linux from being abused in this way is to require
that the end-users have a method of installing the modified code on the
device for which it was intended (such as your phone). If they don't want
to disclose their primary signing keys, fine, but then they need to make
another method available of replacing any free software used in the device
with a modified (by the end-user) version. I understand the need to
protect the non-GPL'ed "baseband" OS from tampering, but it has to be
possible to replace the GPL'ed software. This is what this provision is
all about (for me), and I think it is an extremely important one.
Of course I have focused on cellphones, but the same is equally true for
other embedded devices, such as digital TV boxes (e.g. PVR's). If I want
to add a nice feature (and share the patch with my friends who bought the
same box) I should be free to do so. Isn't that what Free Software is all
about?
Thomas
Linus Torvalds
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Just for clarification. What you are saying is that anyone who insists on
> contributing to the kernel under GPLv3 - that code would be prohibited from
> being included in the kernel? That to contribute to the kernel you must
> contribute under the terms presently in place?
No. We actually have a lot of code that is more widely licensed than just
GPLv2. There's the GPL/BSD code, and there's a lot of files that have the
".. or any later version" addendum which means that they are GPLv3
compatible.
The only thing that the kernel requires is that since the majority of the
code is actually GPLv2-only, that in order for you to be able to link with
the code, your license has to be GPLv2-compatible.
A "GPLv3 _only_" license is not compatible with GPLv2, since v3 adds new
limitations to re-distribution. But what you can do is to dual-license the
code - the same way we've had GPL/BSD dual licenses. Of course, that
effectively becomes the same as "GPLv2" with the "any later version"
clause, but if you like the v3 in _particular_, you can actually mention
it specifically (ie you can dual-license under "v2 _or_ v3", but without
the "any later version" wording if you want).
Note that the Linux kernel has had the clarification that the "by default,
we're version-2 _only_" for a long time, and that limitation is not a new
thing.
You can argue that I should have made that clear on "Day 1" (back in 1992,
when the original switch to the GPL happened), but the fact is, all of the
development for the last five or more years has been done with that "v2
only, unless otherwise stated" (I forget exactly when it happened, but it
was before we even started using BK, so it's a loong time ago).
Also, this has been discussed before, and anybody who felt that they
didn't want to have the "v2 only" limitation has been told to add the "or
any later version" thing to their own code, so nobody can claim that I
restricted their licensing.
So to recap:
- Linux has been v2-only for a _loong_ time, long before there was even
any choice of licenses. That explicit "v2 only" thing was there at
least for 2.4.0, which is more than five years ago. So this is not some
sudden reaction to the current release of GPLv3. This has been there
quite _independently_ of the current GPLv3 discussion.
- if you disagree with code you write, you can (and always have been
able) to say so, and dual-license in many different ways, including
using the "or later version" language. But that doesn't change the fact
that others (a _lot_ of others) have been very much aware of the "v2
only" rule for the kernel, and that most of the Linux kernel sources
are under that rule.
- People argue that Linux hasn't specified a version, and that by virtue
of paragraph 9, you'd be able to choose any version you like. I
disagree. Linux has always specified the version: I don't put the
license in the source code, the source code just says
Copyright (C) 1991-2002 Linux Torvalds
and the license is in the COPYING file, which has ALWAYS been v2. Even
before (for clarification reasons) it explicitly said so.
In other words, that "if no version is mentioned" simply isn't even an
argument. That's like arguing that "if no license is mentioned, it's
under any license you want", which is crap. If no license is mentioned,
you don't have any license at all to use it. The license AND VERSION
has always been very much explicit: linux/COPYING has been there since
1992, and it's been the _version_2_ of the license since day 1.
People can argue against that any way they like. In the end, the only
way you can _really_ argue against it is in court. Last I saw,
intentions mattered more than any legalistic sophistry. The fact that
Linux has been distributed with a specific version of the GPL is a big
damn clue, and the fact that I have made my intentions very clear over
several years is another HUGE clue.
- I don't see any real upsides to GPLv3, and I do see potential
downsides. Things that have been valid under v2 are no longer valid
under v3, so changing the license has real downsides.
Quite frankly, _if_ we ever change to GPLv3, it's going to be because
somebody convinces me and other copyright holders to add the "or any later
license" to all files, just because v3 really is so much better. It
doesn't seem likely, but hey, if somebody shows that the GPLv2 is
unconsitutional (hah!), maybe something like that happens.
So I'm not _entirely_ dismissing an upgrade, but quite frankly, to upgrade
would be a huge issue. Not just I, but others that have worked on Linux
over the last five to ten years would have to agree on it. In contrast,
staying with GPLv2 is a no-brainer: we've used it for almost 15 years, and
it's worked fine, and nobody needs any convincing.
And that really is a big issue: GPLv2 is a perfectly fine license. It has
worked well for us for fourteen years, nothing really changed with the
introduction of GPLv3. The fact that there is a newer license to choose
from doesn't detract from the older ones.
Linus
Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is incompatible
> with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
Indeed. The GPL (both v2 and v3) disallow restricting usage.
So certain _code_ can be either v2 or v3 only, but you can't make that
decision based on how the code is used.
So you can't license, for example, your code "udner the GPL only for the
Linux kernel". Trust me, some companies have actually wanted to do exactly
that - they wanted to distribute their code, but _only_ for the kernel
(and you'd not be allowed to use it for any other GPL'd project). That
just cannot fly. It's either GPL, or it isn't. There's no "GPL with the
following rules".
Linus
Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>
> really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the "or" should
> be an "and"? ;-), v2 in the kernel and v3(or any later version, etc.), if the
> code is used outside of the kernel, it would "fall back to" v3+ as soon as
> it's taken out of the kernel and used in something else.
You very much _can_ dual-license it, and say "for the kernel, we license
it under GPLv2".
But if you do that, then the GPLv2 licensing in the kernel means that
somebody else can take it from the kernel, and ti can still be under the
GPLv2 too (_and_ the GPLv3, for that matter - the kernel GPLv2 license in
no way takes away the ability to use it in any other way that you've
dual-licensed it).
In other words, you cannot say "outside of the kernel, you ahve to use the
GPLv3", because the GPLv2 usage _inside_ of the kernel requires that the
GPLv2 also be usable outside of it.
But you most definitely _can_ dual-license in general. It's perfectly fine
to license something under the GPLv2 and allow redistribution with the
kernel, _and_ have the same code as part of some other project under
GPLv3.
It's just that you cannot limit the kernel version to just a kernel
project. Somebody can (at any time) take the Linux kernel, and turning it
into some totally other GPL-v2-licensed project.
(This really is not at all specific to the GPLv3 - the same thing holds
for any other dual licensing with the GPL. You cannot license your
proprietary code to be "GPL only within the kernel, and proprietary
anywhere else". The GPL inherently requires that the code can be used in
another project).
Linus
Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mer, 2006-01-25 at 17:39 -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> > particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
> > license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
> > so explicitly. Linux never did.
>
> Not correct. See section 9.
Sorry, I think you're wrong.
We've _always_ said which license explicitly. It's in the COPYING file.
Even before the clarification, the COPYING file has always said
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
...
at the very top.
How can you say that we didn't specify a version?
If you distribute a program, and you just say "I license this under the
GPL", THEN you don't specify a verion.
But if you distribute a program, and the ONLY license that is associated
with it is a specific version of a license file, then that's what you
have, UNLESS SOMETHING SAYS OTHERWISE.
This is basic copyright law, btw, and has nothing to do with the GPL per
se. If you don't have a license, you don't have any copyright AT ALL.
Linux kernel files don't say "This is licensed under the GPL". Not mine,
at least. I don't see the point, and I never have. There's a COPYING file
that specifies what the license is, and that COPYING file very much
specifies a very _specific_ version of the GPL. Always has.
Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I
> assume you're referring to this part:
>
> [ snipped ]
Yes.
> I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make it
> difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that.
IF that is the legal interpretation, then yes, I'd agree with you. And no,
I'm not a lawyer. However, the way I read it, it's not about just not
being able to hide the object code - it's fundamentally about being able
to replace and run the object code.
I may indeed be reading it wrong, but I don't think I am. It explicitly
says "install and/or execute".
So I think it says that if I have a private signing key that "enables" the
kernel on some hardware of mine, GPLv3 requires that private key to be
made available for that hardware. Note how that is tied to the _hardware_
(or platform - usualyl the checking would be done by firmware, of course),
not the actual source code of the program.
And that's really what I don't like. I believe that a software license
should cover the software it licenses, not how it is used or abused - even
if you happen to disagree with certain types of abuse.
I believe that hardware that limits what their users can do will die just
becuase being user-unfriendly is not a way to do successful business. Yes,
I'm a damned blue-eyed optimist, but I'd rather be blue-eyed than consider
all uses of security technology to necessarily always be bad.
Linus
Linus Torvalds
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Trying to look at this from a legal point of view. GPLv3 might actually
> contradict GPLv2.
The GPLv2 is explicitly written so that _nothing_ else than a GPLv2
license can be compatible with it.
At most you can dual-license and effectively allow extra rights that way,
but the point is that the GPLv2 is always the limit for any restrictions
(and it's written so that anybody can always take any but the GPLv2
freedoms away - so if you dual-license, your licensees can always decide
to _only_ honor the GPLv2, and ignore any other license).
That's why, in order to re-license anythingt from GPLv2 to anything else,
the license grant itself must make it clear that the "anything else" was
always permissible in the first place. Which is why the FSF had only two
"outs": either people explicitly do the "..or any later version" thing,
_or_ people don't mention the version of the GPL at all, in which case any
version will do.
Chris Adams
>I believe that hardware that limits what their users can do will die just
>becuase being user-unfriendly is not a way to do successful business. Yes,
>I'm a damned blue-eyed optimist, but I'd rather be blue-eyed than consider
>all uses of security technology to necessarily always be bad.
I haven't read the GPLv3 draft myself, but I would guess that private
signing key language is aimed squarely at TiVo. They use a Linux
kernel, but only kernel binaries signed by them will load (so you can't
modify the kernel without jumping through hoops). Is that
"user-unfriendly"? Probably so, but only to a small percentage of the
users.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> This is basic copyright law, btw, and has nothing to do with the GPL per
> se. If you don't have a license, you don't have any copyright AT ALL.
This is really important, btw.
Yes, when we speak colloquially we talk about the fact that Linux is
licensed "under the GPL", but that is _not_ how anybody actually has ever
gotten a license legally. The ONLY way anybody has ever legally licensed
Linux is either with the original very strict copyright _or_ thanks to the
COPYING file. Nothing else really matters.
So the version of the GPL has always been explicit. At no point has the
kernel been distributed without a specific version being clearly mentioned
in the ONLY PLACE that gave you rights to copy the kernel in the first
place. So either you knew it was GPLv2, or you didn't have the right to
copy it in the first place.
In other words, Linux has _never_ been licensed under anything but the GPL
v2, and nobody has _ever_ gotten a legal Linux source distribution with
anything but a complete copy of GPLv2 license file.
So when I say that the additions at the top of the COPYING file are
nothing but clarifications, I'm not just making that up. Anybody who
claims that any Linux kernel I've ever made has ever been licensed under
anything else than those exact two licenses is just not correct.
And Alan, I know we've had this discussion before. You've claimed before
that my clarifications are somehow "changing" the license, and I've told
you before that no, they don't change the license, they just clarify
things that people keep on gettign wrong, or keep on being nervous about.
So people can argue all they want about this. But unless you get a real
legal opinion (not just any random shyster - a real judge making a
statement, or a respected professional who states his firm legal opinion
in no uncertain terms), I don't think you have a legal leg to stand on.
But no, IANAL. I'd be willing to bet real money that a real lawyer would
back me up on this, though.
Linus
---
PS. Just out of historical interest, the only other copyright license ever
distributed with the kernel was this one:
"This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be
redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the
distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute
only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't
(C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied
without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling"
costs.
Mail me at "torv...@kruuna.helsinki.fi" if you have any questions."
and that one was only valid between kernel versions 0.01 and 0.12 or
something like that.
Karim Yaghmour
[This is a repost of the private reply given that lkml wasn't cc'ed]
Thomas Horsten wrote:
>> But when Linux is used instead (something that most major handset
>> manufacturers are working on at the moment), this whole picture changes.
>> Suddenly the whole point of "Free Software" goes away. Because the handset
>> manufacturer modifies, adapts and uses the Linux kernel (for free),
>> without having to give anything back to the community. Yes, they have to
>> make their modified source available, but there is no way a casual user
>> (read: someone not a member of the phone-unlocking mafia) can update the
>> kernel with a modified, recompiled version.
And I would contend that even if they did it wouldn't make much of a
difference. In fact, my reading of GPLv3 is that it would be quite
straight-forward to create GPLv3-compliant consumer exclusion mechanisms.
Here's from an earlier posting I did on the LWN forum discussing the topic:
----------
Prior to booting kernel, let the firmware verify the kernel's signature.
Whether or not the signature is valid, boot the thing. But, if it isn't
valid, lock up or disable or just don't enable those hardware components
that control access to the "stuff" -- and do this in a way that requires
a hard reset for another pass at lock/don't-lock. Then package all the
proprietary/DRM software into individual applications. So everything just
runs as normal up to the time these apps try to access the hardware,
and now because it's disabled, the device is useless.
Using the words of the draft, there are no codes for you to "install and/
or execute" the work. In fact, you're free to install and execute any
kernel you wish. Plus, the kernel's "functioning in all circumstances is
identical". It's just that hardware beneath it just doesn't work any more,
and that, consequently, the proprietary applications running on top can't
do anything because the hardware is disabled.
There you have it, GPL3-compatible DRM -- to the best of my understanding
of course, and mind you I'm not a lawyer.
----------
Just to make sure there is no confusion: note that both signed and
unsigned kernels behave identically here. It's the user-space applications
now that fail when attempting to access some piece of hardware. The
classic case being a mmap'ed register window, therefore both the signed
and unsigned kernel can map it to user-space (i.e. no modification in
behavior for the GPLv3'ed kernel), but the applications' read/writes on
said registers don't work on the non-signed kernel.
Like I said in the LWN forum thread, I do believe things such as DRM
are worth fighting for, but I really think the GPL is the wrong venue.
>> The only way to prevent Linux from being abused in this way is to require
>> that the end-users have a method of installing the modified code on the
>> device for which it was intended (such as your phone). If they don't want
>> to disclose their primary signing keys, fine, but then they need to make
>> another method available of replacing any free software used in the device
>> with a modified (by the end-user) version. I understand the need to
>> protect the non-GPL'ed "baseband" OS from tampering, but it has to be
>> possible to replace the GPL'ed software. This is what this provision is
>> all about (for me), and I think it is an extremely important one.
And entirely useless if you ask me. A GPLv3 could dictate that you could
replace the kernel, but it isn't a hardware license nor a license for
user-space applications -- both of which's direct interaction could not
be dictated by the license of separate "work".
So, in the end, even if this were applied, you would find yourself in a
world where you can replace kernels, but that apart from having access
to running programs on a given architecture, play around with the RAM,
and access entirely unimportant hardware, you can't do very much.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
Al Viro
> PS. Just out of historical interest, the only other copyright license ever
> distributed with the kernel was this one:
>
> "This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be
> redistributed provided you do the following:
>
> - Full source must be available (and free), if not with the
> distribution then at least on asking for it.
>
> - Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute
> only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't
> (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied
> without bothering with copyrights.
>
> - You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling"
> costs.
>
> Mail me at "torv...@kruuna.helsinki.fi" if you have any questions."
>
> and that one was only valid between kernel versions 0.01 and 0.12 or
> something like that.
Interesting... What does that do to e.g. DVD with full (OK, modulo missing
early versions) kernel history all way back to 0.01?
Even funnier question is what does that do to full CVS including the
early versions. Can that be distributed at all and what license would
fit it? Arguing that it's mere aggregation is possible, but it's a
bit of a stretch...
Thomas Horsten
> Just to make sure there is no confusion: note that both signed and
> unsigned kernels behave identically here. It's the user-space applications
> now that fail when attempting to access some piece of hardware. The
> classic case being a mmap'ed register window, therefore both the signed
> and unsigned kernel can map it to user-space (i.e. no modification in
> behavior for the GPLv3'ed kernel), but the applications' read/writes on
> said registers don't work on the non-signed kernel.
That would be a dubious circumvention. Remember that the GPLv3 is still a
draft - the wording can (and should probably) be improved to make it clear
that the system as a whole must behave identically if a modified version
of the GPL'ed software is used.
> Like I said in the LWN forum thread, I do believe things such as DRM
> are worth fighting for, but I really think the GPL is the wrong venue.
It's a good place to start putting pressure on the OEM's. If they can
choose between heavy DRM'ed and closed hardware, and pay millions in
license fees, or get the software they need for free in return for
dropping the restrictions, some are bound to choose the free route. This
is where the fight begins.
Thomas
Roland Kuhn
On 27 Jan 2006, at 03:15, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Linus is posturing. I can go back to numerous previous versions
>> when he
>> and stallman were "buddy buddy" and the language was open
>> and said "any later version". Well, here's the gotcha. Any version
>> released before Linus said this is GPL 2, 3 or later. As of today,
>> all new
>> versions are GPLv2. That's how the law works. So 2.6.15 forward is
>> GPLv2
>> only. Linus cannot re-release previous Linux versions after he
>> already posted this NOTICE in COPYING, which he did and left the
>> language pen like this. So it's up to the recevier of the code
>> whether
>> its GPLv2 or GPLv3 or whatever, but those releases which appeared
>> with
>> COPYING stating this language are whatever GPL license you
>> want.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Linus can't put additional restrictions on code he didn't write.
> If the
> authors licensed it under the GPL version 2 and "any later
> version", Linus
> can't re-release it under a more restrictive license. Read section 6
> carefully:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
> this License.
>
> Notice that the code is licensed to you by the "original
> licensor", not by
> the distributor. The inability to choose a later GPL version is
> definitely a
> "further restriction".
>
> At least, that's how I read it.
Excuse my ignorant jumping into this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong:
Linus takes code provided by others under "GPLv2 or any later
version" and decides to comply to the rules of v2, which allow him to
distribute the work under v2 only. Incidentally v2 is also the less
strict than v3, so all Linus does is take the greatest freedom he is
offered (and pass it on, of course).
The problem would start only if someone insisted on GPLv3 for his/her
code and wanted to get it merged in Linus' tree. I think the only one
to clarify this point is Linus, and he has already done so.
Ciao,
Roland
--
TU Muenchen, Physik-Department E18, James-Franck-Str., 85748 Garching
Telefon 089/289-12575; Telefax 089/289-12570
--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you from doing clever things.
-Doug Gwyn
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GS/CS/M/MU d-(++) s:+ a-> C+++ UL++++ P+++ L+++ E(+) W+ !N K- w--- M
+ !V Y+
PGP++ t+(++) 5 R+ tv-- b+ DI++ e+++>++++ h---- y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Peter Read
> choose between heavy DRM'ed and closed hardware, and pay millions in
> license fees, or get the software they need for free in return for
> dropping the restrictions, some are bound to choose the free route. This
> is where the fight begins.
>
It'd be nice to think that licensing fees wouldn't make a difference
as people would understand that locking themselves into something
they're not allowed to exert any control over is not a good idea... &
so oem's would have to chose due to revenue loss rather than simply
'licensing savings'.
Unfortunately I doubt we're anywhere near close enough yet, so I'll
get my head out of cloud nine...