Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Tarkan Erimer
As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
permission.
But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel
Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and
suggestions about this idea ?
Regards,
Tarkan Erimer
-
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/
Neil Brown
> Hi,
>
> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
> permission.
You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
impossible.
> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
>
> So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel
> Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and
> suggestions about this idea ?
Dual licensing is no easier. It means it is licensed to be used under
either license. You already have permission to use it under GPLv2.
So to get a dual license, you precisely need to get access under GPLv3
i.e. to convince copyright owners to make that license grant. A thing
that we have already agreed is at least "hard".
NeilBrown
David Schwartz
> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
That is a misleading claim. While being dual-licensed would make it either
for other projects to adopt Linux code, it would have three downsides:
1) If Linux code were adopted into other projects that were not
dual-licensed, changes could not be imported back into Linux unless the
changes were dual-licensed which is not likely when the contributions are
made to a project that's not dual-licensed.
2) Linux could no longer take code from other projects that are GPL v2
licensed unless it could obtain them under a dual license.
And, last and probably most serious:
3) Linux derivatives could be available with just a GPL v3 license and no
GPL v2. license if the derivers wanted things that way.
DS
Jan-Benedict Glaw
> On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> > As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> > and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> > So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
> > that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
> > it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
> > contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
> > maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
> > permission.
>
> You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
> of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
> Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
> probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
> everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
> impossible.
And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner
own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small
number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to
new APIs. Ask them all, I think?
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of
the second : things. Right now I am so far behind I will never die.
Tarkan Erimer
David Schwartz wrote:
>> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
>> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
>> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
>> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
>>
>
> That is a misleading claim. While being dual-licensed would make it either
> for other projects to adopt Linux code, it would have three downsides:
>
> 1) If Linux code were adopted into other projects that were not
> dual-licensed, changes could not be imported back into Linux unless the
> changes were dual-licensed which is not likely when the contributions are
> made to a project that's not dual-licensed.
>
> 2) Linux could no longer take code from other projects that are GPL v2
> licensed unless it could obtain them under a dual license.
>
> And, last and probably most serious:
>
> 3) Linux derivatives could be available with just a GPL v3 license and no
> GPL v2. license if the derivers wanted things that way.
>
>
Thanks for the corrections ;-) The whole picture is more clear now for
me :-)
BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux
Kernel is using which version of GPL :
http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html
The work done on a Linux 2.6.20. The result is quite interesting.
Because almost half (Around %60 of the code licensed under "GPLv2 Only"
and the rest is "GPLv2 or above","GPL-Version not specified,others that
have not stated which and what version of License has been used) of the
code is "GPLv2 or above" licensed. And also stated in the article that
some of the codes should be "Dual Licensed" not the whole Linux kernel
needed to be "Dual Licensed". So,if it is really like this, maybe we can
make,for example: "File system related Codes", "Dual Licensed" and it
will allow us to port ZFS from OpenSolaris requested by a lot of people
or other things maybe ?
Tarkan Erimer
> On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <ne...@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
>>
>>> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
>>> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
>>> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
>>> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
>>> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
>>> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
>>> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
>>> permission.
>>>
>> You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
>> of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
>> Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
>> probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
>> everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
>> impossible.
>>
>
> And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner
> own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small
> number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to
> new APIs. Ask them all, I think?
>
> MfG, JBG
>
>
And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
this point for copyright holding ?
Jan Engelhardt
On Jun 10 2007 11:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> Thanks for the corrections ;-) The whole picture is more clear now for me :-)
> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux Kernel is
> using which version of GPL :
>
> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html
You've got to take MODULE_LICENSE() into account. There is
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL");
I think it's time to set things right, making
* MODULE_LICENSE the authoritative place for the license
(also makes it easier to grep for)
* sync up license into MODULE_LICENSE
Jan
--
Simon Arlott
> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux
> Kernel is using which version of GPL :
>
> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html
>
>
> The work done on a Linux 2.6.20. The result is quite interesting.
> Because almost half (Around %60 of the code licensed under "GPLv2 Only"
> and the rest is "GPLv2 or above","GPL-Version not specified,others that
> have not stated which and what version of License has been used) of the
> code is "GPLv2 or above" licensed. And also stated in the article that
> some of the codes should be "Dual Licensed" not the whole Linux kernel
> needed to be "Dual Licensed". So,if it is really like this, maybe we can
> make,for example: "File system related Codes", "Dual Licensed" and it
> will allow us to port ZFS from OpenSolaris requested by a lot of people
> or other things maybe ?
Once code obtained under the GPLv2 only licence that the kernel is released
under is modified and submitted back to Linus for inclusion, that code
would become GPLv2 only - only the original would be BSD/LGPL/GPLv2+ and
only separate changes to the original could continue to be available under
dual licence. Since most files will have been modified at various stages
in Linux's development when major internal changes occur, surely practically
everything is now GPLv2 only?
> So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
If you can contact whoever currently owns the copyright, they can release
it under another licence... however this is no good because the derivative
work would be GPLv2 only. Perhaps if you got *everyone* at all stages of
development (including code that has been removed if existing code is a
derivative work of it) to agree - then it could work.
It only takes one person's code, uncooperative or not contactable, to
prevent a change to the licence, so there's not much point in trying
unless you intend to start replacing such code.
On 10/06/07 10:03, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> You've got to take MODULE_LICENSE() into account. There is
>
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
> MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MPL/GPL");
Surely that doesn't work since the entire Linux kernel is (and can only be)
released as GPLv2? Wouldn't anyone making changes to those files need to
obtain a copy under the other licence and explicitly release it under both
licenses in order to maintain that?
--
Simon Arlott
Neil Brown
> Hi Neil,
>
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> >> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> >> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
> >> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,
> >> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who
> >> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead
> >> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'
> >> permission.
> >>
> >
> > You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission
> > of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
> > Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate
> > probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
> > everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
> > impossible.
> >
> >
>
I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And
if they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of
copyright, so I assume the copyright lapses.
And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that
allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to
contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and
entries in the "Public Notices" section of major newspapers) and if
no-one stepped forward to claim copyright in a reasonable period of
time we could assume that the copyright had lapsed. But you would
need to ask a lawyer, and it would be different in different
countries.
But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.
There would certainly be value in a straw-pole once GPLv3 was out and
had been discussed for a while - to see if a license change to GPLv3
would be accepted by a majority of current developers. Doing that
would at least provide a clear statistic to point people at.
Tarkan Erimer
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300
>> From: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
>> To: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>
> David Lang
Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea
to replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting
such 90+ years!
da...@lang.hm
>> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
>> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
>> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
>> > this point for copyright holding ?
>>
>> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>>
>> David Lang
> Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to
> replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+
> years!
exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
(including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
really doesn't matter how hard it is to deal with the people who you can't
contact.
David Lang
debian developer
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
> >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
> >> > this point for copyright holding ?
> >>
> >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> >>
> >> David Lang
> > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to
> > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+
> > years!
>
> exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
community can discuss the future steps.
Daniel Hazelton
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> > I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And if
> > they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of copyright,
> > so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> years (or so) after the holder's death.
I'm almost certain that it is the same in the US, not the death+90 previously
stated. (I've read the copyright laws a number of times to deal with some
involved conversations) In some of the writings tied the change that made it
death+70 its stated that said change was made to "bring US laws in line with
Europe and most of the rest of the world" (paraphrase - I didn't bother going
and digging out the page again). It's a relatively common belief - and, IIRC,
was even brought before the US Supreme Court - that the copyrights length was
changed to give Disney longer protection, if just because a lot of Disney's
copyrights were going to expire and the change was applied retroactively.
(And, unsurprisingly, the suit was shot down - 70 years is still a "limited"
period. However, IIRC, there was some noted concern by the Supreme Court that
the US Congress would exploit the legal loophole and just keep extending the
copyright period retroactively to make it, effectively, never-ending. That
scenario, while not *technically* in violation of the language of the US
Constitution (which grants the US Congress the power to set the length of
copyrights) would violate the spirit of it)
DRH
Alan Cox
> number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
> no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
> lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.
You can take a fair bet someone will say no, or much more likely they or
whoever inherited their copyright will say $50,000
Adrian Bunk
>...
> And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that
> allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to
> contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and
> entries in the "Public Notices" section of major newspapers) and if
> no-one stepped forward to claim copyright in a reasonable period of
> time we could assume that the copyright had lapsed. But you would
> need to ask a lawyer, and it would be different in different
> countries.
A legal precedent valid in all jurisdictions?
Harald suceessfully takes legal actions against people violating his
copyright on the Linux kernel under the terms of the GPL in Germany at
German courts based on German laws.
If someone finds any legal precedent in Finland or the USA or Russia
that some copyright would have lapsed for some reason, would this have
any legal effect in Germany?
> NeilBrown
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Daniel Hazelton
> > But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> > number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> > the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> > kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
> > no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
> > lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.
>
> You can take a fair bet someone will say no, or much more likely they or
> whoever inherited their copyright will say $50,000
I seeds shades of Merkey there :P
Seriously, though, this was all settled a long time ago. Linus said "While
individual parts of the kernel *could* be licensed [with another license] the
kernel as a whole is strictly GPLv2" (I've tried to get it right, but my
memory isn't as good as it used to be when it comes to useful quotes like
that)
DRH
Tarkan Erimer
> On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>>
>> >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
>> owner can
>> >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
>> >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law
>> orders at
>> >> > this point for copyright holding ?
>> >>
>> >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>> >>
>> >> David Lang
>> > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better
>> idea to
>> > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting
>> such 90+
>> > years!
>>
>> exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
>> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
>> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is
>> better it
>
> Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> community can discuss the future steps.
had very little time to see the final decision about it :-) I hope we
should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris
via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). So,we should
have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-)
Michael Gerdau
> years (or so) after the holder's death.
[I don't want to appear picky but IMO it is important to be as precise
as one could possibly be, therefor...]
That is not quite correct. At least for the german law system and
presumably for most if not all similar systems the corrrect stmts is:
In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
years (or so) after initial publication of the copyrighted work. For
work whose publication date can't be determined (*) (e.g. unpublished work)
the creators death is assumed to be the publication date for the sake
of determining the aforementioned 70 years protection period.
(*) "can't be determined" does not apply for published work with an
insecure initial publication date. In those cases the earliest documented
publication (i.e. prooveable in court) is considered the initial publication
.date
Note that the original phrase could last indefinitely by simply moving
the copyright from person to person.
Best,
Michael
--
Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar
Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg
Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
Michael Gerdau email: m...@technosis.de
GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
Michael Gerdau
> A legal precedent valid in all jurisdictions?
>
> Harald suceessfully takes legal actions against people violating his
> copyright on the Linux kernel under the terms of the GPL in Germany at
> German courts based on German laws.
>
> If someone finds any legal precedent in Finland or the USA or Russia
> that some copyright would have lapsed for some reason, would this have
> any legal effect in Germany?
That is difficult but AFAIK it work in the "increase protection"
direction but not the other way around, at least in germany.
For example even though the copyright on Micky Mouse is no longer
valid by german law it is still enforcible under german law because
the german jurisdiction does acknowledge the (recently extended)
longer such period in the US.
Apart from that I'm sure you'd find some state "legally" waiving a
copyright on whatever. If that would start an avalanche of similar
terminations everywhere else I'd be utterly surprised.
Adrian Bunk
> > In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> > years (or so) after the holder's death.
>
> [I don't want to appear picky but IMO it is important to be as precise
> as one could possibly be, therefor...]
>
> That is not quite correct. At least for the german law system and
> presumably for most if not all similar systems the corrrect stmts is:
>
> In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> years (or so) after initial publication of the copyrighted work.
Please read the German "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte
Schutzrechte" before making completely false claims - in Germany it's
70 years after the death of the author.
> Best,
> Michael
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
Michael Gerdau
> Schutzrechte" before making completely false claims - in Germany it's
> 70 years after the death of the author.
Oups, I had been mixing up named published works and anonymously
published works.
My previous claim is valid for anonymously published work only and
thus holds no relevance for the situation discussed. I apologize for
having raised a false claim.
The copyright for works with a known is valid for 70 years after
the authors death.
Sorry,
Tim Post
> I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And
> if they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of
> copyright, so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that
> allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to
> contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and
> entries in the "Public Notices" section of major newspapers) and if
> no-one stepped forward to claim copyright in a reasonable period of
> time we could assume that the copyright had lapsed. But you would
> need to ask a lawyer, and it would be different in different
> countries.
I've done some research on this and from what I can tell you are
correct. There is some sort of "Due Diligence" law that you have to
satisfy that is slightly different from country to country.
>From what I can tell the process is similar to changing your name, an ad
in the paper would be o.k. in most places. Since the intent of the
copyright holder to make their work free is clear, its pretty clear cut.
It was hard to find specifics, because not many people worry about it if
they know the copyright holder to be existentially challenged. I didn't
find many cases of people even bothering with the formality.
I say existentially challenged because you don't need to be dead to
vanish. I also read it as ".. a person of questionable existence." as
well as "A null (or moot) party".
> But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
> no-one knows for certain yet what the final GPLv3 will be, and maybe
> lots of people would change their mind when it comes out.
I think its good that people have their own viewpoints instead of just
watching the Linus - RMS tennis match as the points of the license get
debated and assuming the views of whoever 'wins' in their eyes. Neither
person is going to be around forever.
> There would certainly be value in a straw-pole once GPLv3 was out and
> had been discussed for a while - to see if a license change to GPLv3
> would be accepted by a majority of current developers. Doing that
> would at least provide a clear statistic to point people at.
Unless you are distributing the Linux kernel in a whole or parts of it
in some way you don't even HAVE to accept the terms of the GPL2, or GPL3
for that matter. This doesn't really concern me as an end user, but it
should interest me (and does).
I'm more worried about someone finding a way to leverage existing or
future patents against users of the Linux kernel, or people who provide
the use of a computer using the Linux kernel as a service.
I'm not *overly* concerned about that. Anyone trying to get people to
pay for the right to use the Linux kernel would put themselves in clear
and certain danger of becoming ' a person of questionable existence '
themselves.
Best,
--Tim
Greg KH
> On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner
> > can
> > >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> > >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders
> > at
> > >> > this point for copyright holding ?
> > >>
> > >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> > >>
> > >> David Lang
> > > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea
> > to
> > > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such
> > 90+
> > > years!
> >
> > exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> > developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> > (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
>
> Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> community can discuss the future steps.
"future steps"? Hah.
My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel
code for all of the reasons I have said in the past, plus a few more
(what, I can make an "industrial" product but not a commercial one?
That's horrible...)
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg KH
> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to
change their minds?
> So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-)
I think the transfer would be more the other way, we have a zillion more
things that they do not than the other way around.
thanks,
greg k-h
Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > the final draft of GPLv3.
I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the
disaster that were the earlier drafts.
I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.
I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
"tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument
seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push
the GPLv3).
Linus
Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
> though.
Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as
v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two
kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at
least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at
all.
I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to
open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my
predictions.
Linus
(*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I
walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their
horrible previous Java license.
Alan Cox
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
yours 8)
Jeff Garzik
> I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.
Ditto.
Jeff
debian developer
present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable
enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are
working on equivalent(etx4 etc.,) and much sophisticated tools for the
linux kernel.
debian developer
> > licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> > "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
>
> GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
I agree with Linus that software licenses should have their influence
only on the software part and leave the freedom of the hardware on
which the software runs to the hardware manufacturers.
But was it the goal of GPLv2??
And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know
his opinions....
Andrew Morton
> And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know
> his opinions....
I have yet to see Linus make a statement on these matters with which
I didn't agree.
David Schwartz
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
> has the answer. Quoting Linus:
>
> "If you want to license a program under any later version of the
> GPL, you have
> to state so explicitly. Linux never did."
>
> Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files
> are GPL2 only.
The GPL states the default position:
"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
Leaving the question of whether Linus's comment at the top of the license
changes the default:
"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."
So we have dueling defaults. The GPL says the default is any version. Linus'
statement at the top of the GPL says the default is v2 only. It's not clear,
at least to me, that there is any clear reason why one should win out over
the other.
DS
Alan Cox
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
They've never been given permission and there is no caselaw yet, doesn't
mean they are allowed to.
GPL2 actually in some ways was saner than GPL3 on this - you could
sensibly argue the key was part of the source/build environment but it
didn't then get muddled in with questions like ROMs which the new GPL3
wording is a bit messy about still.
Alan
James Bruce
[ snip ]
> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> licensing under the GPLv3, though.
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
- Jim Bruce
Jesper Juhl
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> > least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> > licensing under the GPLv3, though.
> [ snip ]
>
> One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
> at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
> of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
> It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
> because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
> etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
> from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
> code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
> found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
>
Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be
dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of
doing so (and I don't yet).
In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
has not even arrived in its final form yet.
--
Jesper Juhl <jespe...@gmail.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Al Viro
> I don't think that upgrading to GPLv3 just for the sake of tools
> present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable
> enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are
> working on equivalent(etx4 etc.,) and much sophisticated tools for the
> linux kernel.
I don't think that switch to GPLv3 can be described as upgrade. I certainly
have no intention to do that to my code; some of it I might release under BSD
license, and that can be used in any project. The rest of the kernel stuff
I've done (and that's the majority of my contributions) is under GPLv2 *only*.
James Bruce
>> One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
>> at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
>> of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
>> It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
>> because the developer is not agreeing to an unseen license (GPLv4,
>> etc). What it does do is make it easier to move to GPLv3 a few years
>> from now, if that is decided then, as a significant fraction of the
>> code will already be GPLv3 compatible. That way, if a reason is ever
>> found to move to v3, at least some of the work will already be done.
>>
> Good luck convincing all contributors to do that.
Well, it's something that pro-GPLv3 people can do right now, instead of
just lobbying/complaining. Given 1000 developers, if 400 start dual
licensing now, and down the road some compelling reason for GPLv3 does
arise (read: a lawsuit with teeth), that's 600 people you need to
contact/convince to change, not 1000. This is made more interesting by
that fact that 40% of the kernel code is already "GPLv2 or later", as
someone else pointed out.
> Personally I'm happy with GPL v2, and I for one won't be
> dual-licensing anything I contribute until I see a clear benefit of
> doing so (and I don't yet).
Well, all my personal (non-kernel) stuff is still GPLv2 only right now
(Linus' opinion is what convinced me that "or later" is dumb), and like
many I disliked the original GPLv3 draft. I'm willing to wait until the
final one is out though, and I think my libraries will end up being
dual-licensed, with contributions required to be dual-licensed. I want
to avoid v3 lock-in, but I don't want to cripple v3 projects either.
> In any case, this whole debate is still a bit premature since GPL v3
> has not even arrived in its final form yet.
Agreed.
- Jim Bruce
Greg KH
> > > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
> > ^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> > theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
>
> They've never been given permission and there is no caselaw yet, doesn't
> mean they are allowed to.
Are you sure? Tivo went and got a FSF "verification" of their system a
number of years ago and got their blessing that what they were doing was
just fine with regards to the GPLv2.
This is one reason Tivo's lawyers were so perplexed when the FSF then
turned around and made their company's name into a term to describe DRM
stuff and started preaching how it was so bad. It seemed to be in
direct crontridiction from what they had previously been told by the
very same people.
Now yes, they didn't consult with the individual owners of the kernel,
who might hold different views as to if v2 covers keys like you have
stated in the past, but the FSF's position in this area does hold some
ammount of weight, especially in court if it were to come to that.
thanks,
greg k-h
H. Peter Anvin
> And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
> hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
> this point for copyright holding ?
In most countries, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the
author. Either way, it is most definitely valid.
-hpa
Tarkan Erimer
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
>> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
>> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
>>
>
> The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
> accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to
> change their minds?
>
"Dual Licensing" or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3. Yeah maybe,the
"OpenSolaris Community" do not want GPLv3. But; IMHO, it is in the hands
of "Sun" not the "OpenSolaris Community".
Regards,
Tarkan
Tarkan Erimer
developers. It's just about an example that came to my mind, as I
mentioned before and also,it is the same thing as we, all the time, did.
I mean getting and sharing codes from many different open source
projects like BSD and countless others. So, OpenSolaris makes no
difference at this.
Regards,
Tarkan
Al Viro
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> >> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
> >> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
> >>
> >
> >The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
> >accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to
> >change their minds?
> >
> It was just an example came to my mind at first when thinking about
> "Dual Licensing" or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3. Yeah maybe,the
> "OpenSolaris Community" do not want GPLv3. But; IMHO, it is in the hands
> of "Sun" not the "OpenSolaris Community".
Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates
is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking
that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
Tarkan Erimer
> Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates
> is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking
> that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
>
However, what is your suggestion ?
Tarkan Erimer
> if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd
> proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the
> linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
I do not want to and try to change anyone's mind: nor the Open Solaris
Community nor the Linux Community. Just, I asked simple question and
included a simple example in it. Son, including an example related to
OpenSolaris does not mean that I want to push OpenSolaris things. That's
all.
Regards,
Tarkan
Ingo Molnar
* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
> > > >> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
> > > >> the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
> > > >> compatible.).
> > > >
> > > > The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not
> > > > want to accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want
> > > > to try to change their minds?
> > >
> > > It was just an example came to my mind at first when thinking
> > > about "Dual Licensing" or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3.
> > > Yeah maybe,the "OpenSolaris Community" do not want GPLv3. But;
> > > IMHO, it is in the hands of "Sun" not the "OpenSolaris Community".
> >
> > Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of
> > advocates is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I
> > suggest taking that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
>
> I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully.
> However, what is your suggestion ?
if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd
proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the
linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks,
Ingo
Ingo Molnar
* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
> [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
> it. [...]
actually, what you said was this:
" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
compatible.). "
and to that the answer was:
" The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
accept GPLv3 [...] "
in other words: your hypothetical is false today. You called us to do a
specific action, but why did you then include a factually false
'example' to underline that point of yours? Or if you simply did not
know about the OpenSolaris community's position beforehand, why dont you
just admit that and withdraw from that line of argument gracefully?
Ingo
Tarkan Erimer
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
>> though.
>>
>
> Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
> _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as
> v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two
> kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at
> least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at
> all.
>
> I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to
> open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my
> predictions.
>
> Linus
>
> (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I
> walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their
> horrible previous Java license.
>
Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
finalized and released.
Regards,
Tarkan
Tarkan Erimer
> * Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
>
>
>> [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
>> it. [...]
>>
>
> actually, what you said was this:
>
> " I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
> the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
> compatible.). "
>
and exporting codes to/from different open source projects.
> and to that the answer was:
>
> " The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
> accept GPLv3 [...] "
>
> in other words: your hypothetical is false today. You called us to do a
> specific action, but why did you then include a factually false
> 'example' to underline that point of yours? Or if you simply did not
> know about the OpenSolaris community's position beforehand, why dont you
> just admit that and withdraw from that line of argument gracefully?
>
> Ingo
>
As I mentioned in my previous posts: This is **not** in the hands of the
"OpenSolaris Community" to make and apply such decision. Sun itself
**will decide** it. Also, there are strong indications that Sun is very
interested to make "OpenSolaris" at least "Dual-Licensed" with GPLv3.
Regards,
Tarkan
Ingo Molnar
* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
> >>it. [...]
> >>
> >
> >actually, what you said was this:
> >
> >" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
> > the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
> > compatible.). "
> >
> Why don't you include the last sentence I wrote: "So,we should have more
> fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) "
You might as well have said "the moon is made out of cheese" and i'd not
have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental
point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only
"example" you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In any
case, speculation about what Sun might or might not do, up until the
point it actually does it, is not something i feel compelled to do
anything over, so please stop wasting my time by Cc:-ing me. Thanks,
Ingo
Tarkan Erimer
> You might as well have said "the moon is made out of cheese" and i'd not
> have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental
> point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only
> "example" you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In any
> case, speculation about what Sun might or might not do, up until the
> point it actually does it, is not something i feel compelled to do
> anything over, so please stop wasting my time by Cc:-ing me. Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
I think, you do not want to understand what I really mean. OK,I
stopping here. Because, you already wasted a lot of my time via always
not understanding what I really mean.
Regards,
Tarkan
Ingo Molnar
* Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
> > (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
> > it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
> > discussed their horrible previous Java license.
>
> Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
> that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
> with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
> finalized and released.
that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the
issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more
interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-)
You mentioned "dtrace" and "ZFS". Firstly, Linux already has a "dtrace"
equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory, although our
prior experience of having compatibly-licensed filesystems ported over
to Linux has been pretty negative: XFS ended up being an integration
nightmare - and that doesnt have to do anything with the qualities of
XFS (it's one of the cleanest Linux filesystems, if not the cleanest),
the problem is that components within a kernel are very tightly
integrated and rarely does it make sense to port over more than just
drivers or maybe libraries. And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks
and which i suspect it is mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux
drivers ;-) XFS, the largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code -
and ZFS (i've never seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux
drivers on the other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code
and enable Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today.
Guess which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-)
Ingo
Alan Cox
> who might hold different views as to if v2 covers keys like you have
> stated in the past, but the FSF's position in this area does hold some
> ammount of weight, especially in court if it were to come to that.
The authors position does have rather a lot of weight too. Especially as
they have been made plain to Tivo and various other relevant parties.
Alan
Tim Post
>
> So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
>
Please realize that one doesn't need to be dead to become
uncommunicative incapacitated or vanish. The only need to be somewhere
other than where they were without updating anyone.
Here is a very humorous, but sort of scary theoretical :
"Linus was so disturbed by the code in a submitted patch that he had a
nervous breakdown and spent the next 30 years in a padded room.
Unfortunately, no provisions were left to determine what happens to his
copyrights should he become incapacitated."
That is a LOT different than
"Linus passed away at age 397 today, and left an appropriate will so his
work remains useful for those enjoying it."
If you are a substantial contributor, address this in a will should you
die and limited power of attorney to someone that you trust should you
fall off the face of the planet. Just like you would see to it that your
assets were properly dispersed if something happened to you.
If your unfortunate enough to not have anyone in your life that you can
trust, you can grant power of attorney to any reputable charitable
organization that you feel mirrors your beliefs and ideals.
Prevention is so much better than a cure and quite cheap.
Best,
--Tim
Bron Gondwana
>
> * Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
>
> > > (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
> > > it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
> > > discussed their horrible previous Java license.
> >
> > Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
> > that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
> > with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
> > finalized and released.
>
> that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the
> issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more
> interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-)
> You mentioned "dtrace" and "ZFS". Firstly, Linux already has a "dtrace"
> equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory
Having just got my first Sun box (one of those 48 disk Thumper machines)
I can say it's very interesting in practice too. The admin tools for
zfs are a dream to use (unlike just about everything else on Solaris
which is a bugwards compatible nightmare to use) and the attitude of
checksumming everything on to disk and checking that those checksums
match on the way back out presses my "do your own safety checking and
don't trust the hardware" buttons very much the right way - especially
with that much hardware in there.
I would love to see Sun GPL3 OpenSolaris, not so much for the code
itself (maybe not portable into Linux) but for the clarity it would
give to the patent position. The patent peace would be portable back
to GPL2.
Bron.
Tarkan Erimer
> * Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr> wrote:
>
>
>>> (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
>>> it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
>>> discussed their horrible previous Java license.
>>>
>> Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications
>> that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris
>> with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3
>> finalized and released.
>>
>
> that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the
> issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more
> interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-)
>
> You mentioned "dtrace" and "ZFS". Firstly, Linux already has a "dtrace"
> equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory, although our
> prior experience of having compatibly-licensed filesystems ported over
> to Linux has been pretty negative: XFS ended up being an integration
> nightmare - and that doesnt have to do anything with the qualities of
> XFS (it's one of the cleanest Linux filesystems, if not the cleanest),
> the problem is that components within a kernel are very tightly
> integrated and rarely does it make sense to port over more than just
> drivers or maybe libraries. And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks
> and which i suspect it is mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux
> drivers ;-) XFS, the largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code -
> and ZFS (i've never seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux
> drivers on the other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code
> and enable Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today.
> Guess which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-)
>
> Ingo
>
OpenSolaris more usable and user friendly. Here is an article about this
subject and some thoughts of Ian (Murdock) about it ;-)
Alexandre Oliva
> And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks and which i suspect it is
> mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux drivers ;-) XFS, the
> largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code - and ZFS (i've never
> seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux drivers on the
> other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code and enable
> Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today. Guess
> which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-)
Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
not? ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
> have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
> not? ;-)
Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in
this to actually further some open-source agenda.
Here's a cynical prediction (but backed up by past behaviour of Sun):
- first off: they may be talking a lot more than they are or ever will
be doing. How many announcements about Sun and Linux have you seen over
the years? And how much of that has actually happened?
- They may like open source, but Linux _has_ hurt them in the
marketplace. A lot.
They almost used to own the chip design market, and it took quite a
long time before the big EDA vendors ported to Linux (and x86-64 in
particular). But when they did, their chip design market just basically
disappeared: sparc performance is so horribly bad (especially on a
workstation kind of setup), that to do chip design on them is just
idiotic. Which is not to say that there aren't holdouts, but let's face
it, for a lot of things, Solaris is simply the wrong choice these days.
Ergo: they sure as hell don't want to help Linux. Which is fine.
Competition is good.
- So they want to use Linux resources (_especially_ drivers), but they do
*not* want to give anything back (especially ZFS, which seems to be one
of their very very few bright spots).
- Ergo: they'll not be releasing ZFS and the other things that people are
drooling about in a way that lets Linux use them on an equal footing. I
can pretty much guarantee that. They don't like competition on that
level. They'd *much* rather take our drivers and _not_ give anythign
back, or give back the stuff that doesn't matter (like core Solaris:
who are you kidding - Linux code is _better_).
End result:
- they'll talk about it. They not only drool after our drivers, they
drool after all the _people_ who write drivers. They'd love to get
kernel developers from Linux, they see that we have a huge amount of
really talented people. So they want to talk things up, and the more
"open source" they can position themselves, the better.
- They may release the uninteresting parts under some fine license. See
the OpenSolaris stuff - instead of being blinded by the code they _did_
release under an open source license, ask yourself what they did *not*
end up releasing. Ask yourself why the open source parts are not ready
to bootstrap a competitive system, or why they are released under
licenses that Sun can make sure they control.
So the _last_ thing they want to do is to release the interesting stuff
under GPLv2 (quite frankly, I think the only really interesting thing they
have is ZFS, and even there, I suspect we'd be better off talking to
NetApp, and seeing if they are interested in releasing WAFL for Linux).
Yes, they finally released Java under GPLv2, and they should be commended
for that. But you should also ask yourself why, and why it took so long.
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that other Java implementations
started being more and more relevant?
Am I cynical? Yes. Do I expect people to act in their own interests? Hell
yes! That's how things are _supposed_ to happen. I'm not at all berating
Sun, what I'm trying to do here is to wake people up who seem to be living
in some dream-world where Sun wants to help people.
So to Sun, a GPLv3-only release would actually let them look good, and
still keep Linux from taking their interesting parts, and would allow them
to take at least parts of Linux without giving anything back (ahh, the
joys of license fragmentation).
Of course, they know that. And yes, maybe ZFS is worthwhile enough that
I'm willing to go to the effort of trying to relicense the kernel. But
quite frankly, I can almost guarantee that Sun won't release ZFS under the
GPLv3 even if they release other parts. Because if they did, they'd lose
the patent protection.
And yes, I'm cynical, and yes, I hope I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'll
very happily retract anything cynical I said about Sun. They _have_ done
great things, and maybe I'm just too pessimistic about all the history
I've seen of Sun with open source.
The _good_ news is that Jonathan Schwartz actually does seem to have made
a difference, and I hope to God he is really as serious about
open-sourcing things as he says he is. And don't get me wrong: I think a
truly open-source GPLv3 Solaris would be a really really _good_ thing,
even if it does end up being a one-way street as far as code is concerned!
Linus
debian developer
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> > On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner
> > > can
> > > >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> > > >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders
> > > at
> > > >> > this point for copyright holding ?
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> > > >>
> > > >> David Lang
> > > > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea
> > > to
> > > > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such
> > > 90+
> > > > years!
> > >
> > > exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> > > developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> > > (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
> >
> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> > should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> > community can discuss the future steps.
>
>
> My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel
> code for all of the reasons I have said in the past, plus a few more
> (what, I can make an "industrial" product but not a commercial one?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What exactly in GPLv3 forbids you from making a commercial product?
Greg KH
Nothing "forbids" me, it's just the artifical distinstion of the two is,
in my opinion, stupid and foolish. You are trying to define use-cases
to justify their notion that you must give up the hardware keys for one
type of device, yet not for another.
Even the people that feel that v2 says you need to give up the keys
think this is dumb. But we've been through all of that before (see
previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers hate it, it
all still applys to the final draft.)
greg k-h
Alexandre Oliva
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
>> have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
>> not? ;-)
> Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in
> this to actually further some open-source agenda.
Err, no. I was merely questioning Ingo's reasoning that Sun wanted
Linux's drivers as badly as he made it seem. All the fuss about
waiting for and going to GPLv3 wouldn't get them that. Moving to
GPLv2 would, and still, they aren't doing it. That was my point.
FWIW, I share most of your assessment and wait-and-see attitude about
Sun's situation.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Alexandre Oliva
> (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
> hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Florian Weimer
> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)
In a strange twist, the last-call draft contains a clause that
expressly permits some forms of "tivoization", provided a suitable
contractual arrangement exists ("Basic Permissions", second
paragraph).
Now a lot of the free software market follows this "sell yourself into
slavery" model (and even the FSF recommends to make money this way),
but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to state it so plainly in the
license.
Matthias Kaehlcke
FYI, Jonathan Schwartz' response:
Linus,
First, I'm glad you give credit to Sun for the contributions we've
made to the open source world, and Linux specifically - we take the
commitment seriously. It's why we freed OpenOffice, elements of Gnome,
Mozilla, delivered Java, and a long list of other contributions that
show up in almost every distro. Individuals will always define
communities, but Sun as a company has done its part to grow the market
- for others as much as ourselves.
But I disagree with a few of your points. Did the Linux community hurt
Sun? No, not a bit. It was the companies that leveraged their work. I
draw a very sharp distinction - even if our competition is
conveniently reckless. They like to paint the battle as Sun vs. the
community, and it's not. Companies compete, communities simply
fracture.
And OpenSolaris has come a very long way since you last looked. It and
its community are growing, as a result of more than ZFS (although we
seem to be generating a lot of interest there, not all intentional) -
OpenSolaris scales on any hardware, has built in virtualization, great
web service infrastucture, fault management, diagnosability, and tons
more. Feel free to try for yourself (and yes, we're fixing
installability, no fair knocking us for that.)
Now despite what you suggest, we love where the FSF's GPL3 is
headed. For a variety of mechanical reasons, GPL2 is harder for us
with OpenSolaris - but not impossible, or even out of the
question. This has nothing to do with being afraid of the community
(if it was, we wouldn't be so interested in seeing ZFS everywhere,
including Linux, with full patent indemnity). Why does open sourcing
take so long? Because we're starting from products that exist, in
which a diversity of contributors and licensors/licensees have rights
we have to negotiate. Indulge me when I say It's different than
starting from scratch. I would love to go faster, and we are all doing
everything under our control to accelerate progress. (Remember, we
can't even pick GPL3 yet - it doesn't officially exist.) It's also a
delicate dance to manage this transition while growing a corporation.
But most of all, from where I sit, we should put the swords down -
you're not the enemy for us, we're not the enemy for you. Most of the
world doesn't have access to the internet - that's the enemy to slay,
the divide that separates us. By joining our communities, we can bring
transparency and opportunity to the whole planet. Are we after your
drivers? No more than you're after ZFS or Crossbow or dtrace - it's
not predation, it's prudence. Let's stop wasting time recreating
wheels we both need to roll forward.
I wanted you to hear this from me directly. We want to work together,
we want to join hands and communities - we have no intention of
holding anything back, or pulling patent nonsense. And to prove the
sincerity of the offer, I invite you to my house for dinner. I'll
cook, you bring the wine. A mashup in the truest sense.
Best,
Jonathan
President, Chief Executive Officer,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
--
Matthias Kaehlcke
Linux Application Developer
Barcelona
Yo soy como soy y tú eres como eres, construyamos un mundo donde yo
pueda ser sin dejar de ser yo, donde tú puedas ser sin dejar de ser
tú, y donde ni yo ni tú obliguemos al otro a ser como yo o como tú
.''`.
using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' :
`. `'`
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 47D8E5D4 `-
Bernd Paysan
> You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
My impression as well is that there are many misunderstandings, even
concerning the status of Linux itself. Linus is much better at kernel
hacking than at license issues, and that's true for most other kernel
hackers, too - that's why we have Eben Moglen to hack the license.
I want to add my two cents on what I think the legal status of the
individual contributions to Linux are. The thing in question is not the
GPLv2 itself (which is pretty clear that code without explicit statements
is under "any", and if you make an explicit statement, it should read "GPL
version two, or (at your option) any later version"), it's this text on the
top of /usr/src/linux/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.
Linus Torvalds"
This text was added in or around 2.4.0-test9, but without asking for
permission (neither from the FSF, which has the copyright of the GPL, nor
from the other authors of the Linux kernel), and with some controversion
afterwards.
This particular comment to how the GPL is applied to the Linux kernel
therefore doesn't change the GPL as such (it can't without breaking
copyright), neither does it change the licensing conditions the original
authors put on their contribution (it can't without breaking copyright,
either), but may only provide interpretations downstream (for the user).
Linus is also entitled to make clairifications there, which the first
paragraph obviously does (i.e. the text Linus added is not a change of the
license, but a comment on it).
Again: What Linus is entitled to do is to *select* the license under which
he redistributes the code downstream. What he can't do is to *change* the
intention of the original author. So if you can choose what this somewhat
ambiguous message means, and restrict yourself to reasoning that doesn't go
into nonsense or copyright infringement, you'll pretty much come to the
conclusion that the only thing Linus could have done back then without
asking for permission is the license condition how he *redistributes* the
compiled work called "Linux kernel" (it's a "compiled work", because it
consists of a compilation of individual files from many authors).
The GPLv2 however is very clear how the end user gets the license: from the
original author. Not from the man in the middle, from a distributor or
kernel maintainer, who can neither add nor drop restrictions/permissions
(and thus the special rights of a compilation editor are void). The author
can only speak for himself, not by behalf of somebody else, as well as the
compilation editor. That's why the FSF is so strict about having each
author stating copyright and the license conditions on the top of the
file - nobody else can.
So my conclusion is: If you, as contributor to the Linux kernel, want to
make clear that your work really is GPLv2 only, you have to do that
yourself, you have to add a notice like above to files where you
exclusively own copyright. Very few have done that in the past, most people
who *did* explicitely declare what versions of the GPL they want their work
under, did choose the default text from the GPLv2, which sais "GPLv2 or
later" (most use the GPL text template). The rest (the majority) did not
choose to say anything, which under the GPL regime means "any"; and nobody
but the author himself can change that (by adding a specific version).
Linus can't change the GPL regime, because he can't change the GPL.
So, IMHO and IANAL, technically, there are only a few files in Linux which
really can't work in a GPLv2+GPLv3 compiled Linux, and a few files wouldn't
be a problem.
From a practical point of view, I fully agree with Linus that there's no
point in switching over to the GPLv3 next month unless there's some
valueable contribution out there that's only available under GPLv3 (maybe
from OpenSolaris), or the Linux kernel developers understand the GPLv3
better. I don't see this point in the near future.
But what I want to say: The route to GPLv3 is not as blocked as it appears.
And the GPLv2 is even better than you think: It paves that road as well: In
practice, only projects that have a thight authorship control can really
make their project GPLv2 only (like MySQL), and those projects have no
problem to change their mind later.
What I don't understand about the GPLv3 with keys is why that depends on the
use case. As user of commercial devices like company routers, firewalls and
such, which often are Linux based, I don't want them sealed by the vendor,
as well. An explicit statement is even worse than an implicit one (as in
the GPLv2, which has been tested in a German court by Harald Welte -
Siemens had to turn in the keys).
And now flame me to death ;-).
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
Krzysztof Halasa
> I want to add my two cents on what I think the legal status of the
> individual contributions to Linux are. The thing in question is not the
> GPLv2 itself (which is pretty clear that code without explicit statements
> is under "any",
That's not exactly true. A work without explicit statements is not
licenced at all.
> This particular comment to how the GPL is applied to the Linux kernel
> therefore doesn't change the GPL as such
Of course.
> Again: What Linus is entitled to do is to *select* the license under which
> he redistributes the code downstream.
Sure.
> The GPLv2 however is very clear how the end user gets the license: from the
> original author.
I'd be surprised if it's for GPL to decide.
> Not from the man in the middle, from a distributor or
> kernel maintainer, who can neither add nor drop restrictions/permissions
> (and thus the special rights of a compilation editor are void). The author
> can only speak for himself, not by behalf of somebody else, as well as the
> compilation editor.
How about derived works?
Am I free to get BSD source, incorporate it in GPL project, and release
the whole under GPL?
Sure, the original source stays BSD but I don't distribute it.
> That's why the FSF is so strict about having each
> author stating copyright and the license conditions on the top of the
> file - nobody else can.
I'm not sure the copyright laws define "files".
> So my conclusion is: If you, as contributor to the Linux kernel, want to
> make clear that your work really is GPLv2 only, you have to do that
> yourself, you have to add a notice like above to files where you
> exclusively own copyright.
I don't think the law works like that.
By default you have no rights to someone's work (file or project).
The only licence I can find with Linux is GPL v2, isn't it? And even
that wasn't stated explicite until that 2.4.0something (though there
is a consensus that the COPYING file was indeed a licence for the
whole kernel).
Then you may have additional rights, such as those given in various
source files.
> The rest (the majority) did not
> choose to say anything, which under the GPL regime means "any";
What exactly is the "GPL regime" and how is it defined by copyright
law and/or the GPL licence itself (or will of copyright holders etc.)?
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Pavel Machek
> > So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
> >
>
> Please realize that one doesn't need to be dead to become
> uncommunicative incapacitated or vanish. The only need to be somewhere
> other than where they were without updating anyone.
>
> Here is a very humorous, but sort of scary theoretical :
>
> "Linus was so disturbed by the code in a submitted patch that he had a
> nervous breakdown and spent the next 30 years in a padded room.
> Unfortunately, no provisions were left to determine what happens to his
> copyrights should he become incapacitated."
License is only promise not to sue. If Linus is safely in a padded
room, I'll happily relicense Linux under GPLv17, knowing he is not
going to sue me :-).
(And actually, if he's in a padded room, there's probably someone who
can act in his name. At least czech law works like that.)
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Bernd Paysan
> > The GPLv2 however is very clear how the end user gets the license: from
> > the original author.
>
> I'd be surprised if it's for GPL to decide.
If you choose the GPL as license, the text of the GPL are the conditions.
Otherwise, the GPL would be pure nonsense (as would be any other license).
> > Not from the man in the middle, from a distributor or
> > kernel maintainer, who can neither add nor drop
> > restrictions/permissions (and thus the special rights of a compilation
> > editor are void). The author can only speak for himself, not by behalf
> > of somebody else, as well as the compilation editor.
>
> How about derived works?
> Am I free to get BSD source, incorporate it in GPL project, and release
> the whole under GPL?
> Sure, the original source stays BSD but I don't distribute it.
Derivated work is a product of several authors, therefore each author may
put different conditions on his part of the work - as long as they are
compatible, it's ok. A derivated work originally under BSD, now with a
patch under GPL can only be distributed under GPL, but not under BSD
(because GPL requires redistribution under GPL, whereas BSD doesn't care).
If you take out the patch, and revert the work to the BSD one, you are free
to redistribute it under BSD.
There's no point of discussing that the Linux kernel *as a whole* (as
compilation) currently is under GPLv2 only, since it sais so, and a few
files also explicitely say so. The whole combination is GPLv2 only, but
most parts aren't.
> > That's why the FSF is so strict about having each
> > author stating copyright and the license conditions on the top of the
> > file - nobody else can.
>
> I'm not sure the copyright laws define "files".
Copyright law defines "work", and in terms of computer programs, source
code "work" goes into files. Or patches, but patches end up distributed
over several files.
The nice thing about this is that you can make automatic checks about the
license you actually have to fulfill. E.g. if you compile a hypothetical
Linux 2.8.15.3 without ZFS and dtrace in 2009, you may end up with
compiling only GPLv2-compatible code, and therefore can tivoize your system
(unless you sell it to Germany, where the GPLv2 outlaws tivoizing by
intent), but if you add either ZFS or dtrace, you can't.
> > So my conclusion is: If you, as contributor to the Linux kernel, want
> > to make clear that your work really is GPLv2 only, you have to do that
> > yourself, you have to add a notice like above to files where you
> > exclusively own copyright.
>
> I don't think the law works like that.
> By default you have no rights to someone's work (file or project).
> The only licence I can find with Linux is GPL v2, isn't it?
Yes, and the GPLv2 sais "if the FSF releases a new version of the GPL, you
may update" (section 9):
" 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
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. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation."
This is normal contract law (you have to say "yes" to a new M$ EULA every
few months or so if you are an unlucky Windows user, and like to use their
patches), contracts can change over time. The FSF is rather nice here, they
say users and contributors can make choices to which contract they use.
Given that the license you find with Linux is GPLv2, anyway, the comment
from Linus seems to be superfluous. The license already says which version
it is. But it has this upgrade option, and one possible interpretation of
Linus' comment is "no, it doesn't have this update option".
> And even
> that wasn't stated explicite until that 2.4.0something (though there
> is a consensus that the COPYING file was indeed a licence for the
> whole kernel).
>
> Then you may have additional rights, such as those given in various
> source files.
>
> > The rest (the majority) did not
> > choose to say anything, which under the GPL regime means "any";
>
> What exactly is the "GPL regime" and how is it defined by copyright
> law and/or the GPL licence itself (or will of copyright holders etc.)?
If I use GPL as license, I'm under "GPL regime", i.e. the terms of the GPL
apply. The GPL requires that I need to speak up explicitely if I want to
limit the choice of licenses - if I don't say anything, it defaults to "any
GPL". This is a restriction that goes from author to user, sinde the GPL
cuts away all middle-men (restrictions applied by middle-men can be
reverted).
If I decide to build my own compilation of Linux kernel patches* (i.e. a -bp
kernel, like the -mm kernel is a different compilation of Linux kernel
patches as the mainline kernel), I'm free to choose under which conditions
I redistribute it, given that it's compatible with the conditions the
original authors have chosen. Most of them have said nothing (other than
implicitely that it's ok for them to put it under GPL, as they haven't
opposed to inclusion into the Linux kernel), some have said GPLv2 or later,
some say GPLv1.1 or later (e.g. the parport driver) and a few have
said "GPLv2 only". Now, I may rewrite those few "GPLv2 only" files, and
then I have a GPLv2-or later compatible linux-some.version-bp kernel. And
into this kernel, I can add code under GPLv3 (once the GPLv3 is ready and
there's code worth to add under GPLv3), which limits me to redistribute the
whole thing under GPLv3.
Tarkan Erimer
Completely agreed :-)
> End result:
>
> - they'll talk about it. They not only drool after our drivers, they
> drool after all the _people_ who write drivers. They'd love to get
> kernel developers from Linux, they see that we have a huge amount of
> really talented people. So they want to talk things up, and the more
> "open source" they can position themselves, the better.
>
>
Definitely. They already began to pull some people like Ian Murdock. And
I'm really very disappointed of this move,Ian did. Especially, such a
person who has very good reputation and high profile in the Linux
Community. He immediately shut down his company (also leaved
Linux-Foundation) and joined to sun. After joining, he made statements
like "How to make Solaris more like Linux ?" etc. Like a 40 years
employee at Sun. Another interesting thing is the timing of this hiring.
So, this situation is a good example of it.
One more time,agreed ;-)
Regards,
Tarkan
Tarkan Erimer
> FYI, Jonathan Schwartz' response:
>
> I wanted you to hear this from me directly. We want to work together,
> we want to join hands and communities - we have no intention of
> holding anything back, or pulling patent nonsense. And to prove the
> sincerity of the offer, I invite you to my house for dinner. I'll
> cook, you bring the wine. A mashup in the truest sense.
>
> Best,
> Jonathan
>
> President, Chief Executive Officer,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
>
>
Really very very interesting! This words reminded me the same dialogues
and affair, between "Linus" and "Steve Jobs", that have been happened
several years ago :-)
Regards,
Tarkan
Jan Harkes
> There's no point of discussing that the Linux kernel *as a whole* (as
> compilation) currently is under GPLv2 only, since it sais so, and a few
> files also explicitely say so. The whole combination is GPLv2 only, but
> most parts aren't.
You claim that any source files without a notices are 'any version of
the GPL'. But I read the license and you are totally wrong about that.
The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel
as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code
submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the
understanding that the work as a whole is specifically licensed as
GPLv2. Some authors have granted additional rights, such as dual BSD/GPL
or GPLv2 and later and explicitly added such a notice.
All other code is simply copyrighted, and the only available license is
the GPLv2. Take for example fs/inode.c. Notice how it doesn't have GPL
boilerplate, but it is clearly indicating that it is copyrighted. So
taking that file by itself out of the context of the kernel and then
distributing it would clearly be a copyright violation. The only one
reason you can distribute that code is because of the GPLv2 that covers
the Linux kernel (i.e. "the Program").
> > > So my conclusion is: If you, as contributor to the Linux kernel, want
> > > to make clear that your work really is GPLv2 only, you have to do that
> > > yourself, you have to add a notice like above to files where you
> > > exclusively own copyright.
The kernel is explicitly licensed as GPLv2, any contributions (source
files/parts of the work) that wish to grant additional rights have to
specify so explicitly, and not the other way around however much you'd
like that.
> patches as the mainline kernel), I'm free to choose under which conditions
> I redistribute it, given that it's compatible with the conditions the
> original authors have chosen. Most of them have said nothing (other than
> implicitely that it's ok for them to put it under GPL, as they haven't
> opposed to inclusion into the Linux kernel), some have said GPLv2 or later,
Reread section 9 and consider that "the Program" is the Linux kernel,
which does explicitly state a version and does not include the "and any
later" option. Any source that does not explicitly specify additional
rights is GPLv2.
Jan
Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <gr...@kroah.com> wrote:
>
> > (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
> > hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
>
> You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and
cannot read or think for themselves.
Any time you disagree with the FSF, you "misunderstand" (insert
condescending voice) the issue.
_Please_ don't continue that idiocy. Disagreement and thinking that the
FSF is controlling and putting its fingers where they don't belong is
_not_ misunderstanding. It's just not "blind and unquestioning obedience".
Linus
Rob Landley
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
> > has the answer. Quoting Linus:
> >
> > "If you want to license a program under any later version of the
> > GPL, you have
> > to state so explicitly. Linux never did."
> >
> > Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files
> > are GPL2 only.
>
> The GPL states the default position:
>
> "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
> choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
>
> changes the default:
>
> "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."
>
> Linus' statement at the top of the GPL says the default is v2 only. It's
> not clear, at least to me, that there is any clear reason why one should
> win out over the other.
Except that Linux included a copy of the license it was distributed under in
the tarball, which was GPLv2. There's a case to be made that this DOES count
as "selection of the license version". It's hard to get more explicit than
including the complete license text.
On top of that, Linus clarified his position back in 2000:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html
This means that not only are his on contributions so licensed, but there's a
strong case to be made that everything he merged since then is explicitly
GPLv2 only when sourced from the Linux kernel. As maintainer there's a good
argument that he has a compliation copyright on the kernels he releases. He
was certainly accepting patches under GPLv2 only, and merging them into a
GPLv2 only work. Sourcing ANY code from that work and declaring it non-GPLv2
is really fishy; much better to find a clean upstream source, such as the
original authors.
Of course the FSF would very, very much like this not to have been the case,
and they've been trying to wish it away ever since...
Rob
Alexandre Oliva
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <gr...@kroah.com> wrote:
>>
>> > (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
>> > hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
>>
>> You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
> I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and
> cannot read or think for themselves.
Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd
like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the
earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so?
Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of
two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or
preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the
former.
Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
models better your intentions than GPLv3.
Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris
very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting
others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect
others' freedoms, has never been what moved you. Rather, you seem to
perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution,
rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires. In
fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago.
With this different frame of mind, it is not surprising at all that
you don't find GPLv3 a better license. With different goals in mind,
reasonable people can reach different conclusions. But claiming that
GPLv3 is changing the spirit of the license, or that it prohibits
certain kinds of software, is plain false. In fact, the spirit has
always been described in its preamble, and it didn't change at all:
it's all about respecting others' freedoms.
Sure, this evokes a number of other nice behaviors in various players,
and it's clear to me that it's in these other nice behaviors that you
seek when you choose GPLv2. There's nothing inherently wrong in that.
However, it seems to me that GPLv3 would do an even better job at
serving these goals than GPLv2, even if the holes v3 plugs that
enabled players to disrespect others' freedoms might steer away the
participants who are not willing to contribute, to really be part of
your community. It's not like you lose much.
But the new defenses against disrespect for freedoms introduced in
GPLv3 may turn out to be very helpful, not only in protecting your
community from external threats, but also in strengthening
participation, as the benefits of participation outweight the
perceived costs of respecting others' freedoms.
It sure seems to me that trading some threats and non-contributors for
some more-committed participants is a good idea.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Krzysztof Halasa
> If you choose the GPL as license, the text of the GPL are the conditions.
> Otherwise, the GPL would be pure nonsense (as would be any other license).
The licence can't redefine the copyright laws. It doesn't make it pure
nonsense BTW.
> 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. If the Program does not specify a version number of
> this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
> Foundation."
That would be the case if "the Program" (the whole or individual file(s))
contained something like:
"you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU
General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation".
Obviously, you could then choose any version including the first one.
> This is normal contract law (you have to say "yes" to a new M$ EULA every
> few months or so if you are an unlucky Windows user, and like to use their
> patches),
This is very different (though unrelated) - patches are new work and
I hope you're free to use your MS Windows under old conditions if you
don't need the new work.
> contracts can change over time. The FSF is rather nice here, they
> say users and contributors can make choices to which contract they use.
FSF has exactly nothing to say here (except that they've created
a useful licence). The author can choose whatever conditions he/she
likes.
> Given that the license you find with Linux is GPLv2, anyway, the comment
> from Linus seems to be superfluous. The license already says which version
> it is.
It seems so.
> But it has this upgrade option, and one possible interpretation of
^^
> Linus' comment is "no, it doesn't have this update option".
It? What "it"?
I don't get it. If you say the licence is v2 only, then how can it have
options?
> If I use GPL as license, I'm under "GPL regime", i.e. the terms of the GPL
> apply.
First, the local and international laws apply. It's not like selling your
soul to the devil.
> The GPL requires that I need to speak up explicitely if I want to
> limit the choice of licenses - if I don't say anything, it defaults to "any
> GPL". This is a restriction that goes from author to user, sinde the GPL
> cuts away all middle-men (restrictions applied by middle-men can be
> reverted).
... theoretically, by removing their work, perhaps. Back to reality...
> If I decide to build my own compilation of Linux kernel patches* (i.e. a -bp
> kernel, like the -mm kernel is a different compilation of Linux kernel
> patches as the mainline kernel), I'm free to choose under which conditions
> I redistribute it, given that it's compatible with the conditions the
> original authors have chosen. Most of them have said nothing (other than
> implicitely that it's ok for them to put it under GPL, as they haven't
> opposed to inclusion into the Linux kernel),
There is no assumption of "GPL", you can only assume GPL v2 as the kernel
is v2. And it's not left for assumptions anymore, see "signed-off-by" and
licence tags (though the tags often specify "GPL" when the actual
licence, as indicated by the author, is GPL v2).
> Now, I may rewrite those few "GPLv2 only" files, and
> then I have a GPLv2-or later compatible linux-some.version-bp kernel.
Sure, you can rewrite all non "GPLv2 or later" code and have v3 Linux.
The problem is you think only "few" files are v2.
Rob Landley
> On 6/10/07, Alan Cox <al...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices
> > > worries about
> >
> > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
A law never stops anybody from doing anything. Enforcing the law does.
First of all, let's not confuse civil with criminal law:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009034.html
> The difference between tort—breach of private rights—and crime—commission
> of an offence designated as such by the State—is one of the key legal
> concepts which the pro lawyer understands and the fan lawyer does not
Most variants of copyright infringement are a civil, not criminal matter.
This means the state has no interest in enforcing the, it's your job to sue
for damages and a restraining order if you want to exercise these rights
(some people choose not to), and you have to have standing (I.E. be a holder
of one of the infringed copyrights, or a designated legal representative
thereof) in order to sue. If none of the copyright holders sue to stop it,
then it doesn't get stopped no matter how blatantly infringing it is. Did
anybody even bother to send Tivo a cease and desist?
Erik Andersen burned himself out trying to enforce the copyrights on BusyBox
before Pamela Jones hooked that project (and uClibc) up with the SFLC.
Harald Welte's been burning the candle at both ends with gpl-violations.org,
but he's focusing on stuff sold in Germany.
As for anti-tivoisation, you can make a case that your signed binary is a
derived work of the GPL source code just like a non-signed binary is,
therefore the signing key is part of the source code used to create that
binary, therefore GPLv2 requires the signing key be handed over on request.
(I don't know if you'd WIN, I just know you could reasonably argue it in
court and probably get past the inevitable initial motions to dismiss.)
GPLv2 is a nice, elegant license. It's not perfect but it's very simple for
what it does.
GPLv3 is not simple, not elegant, and contains numerous of special cases.
Lots of the programmers here have an instinctive aversion to it because it
reads like bad code. We don't necessarily have to program in legalese to
sense bad code in that language, at least compared to a "good code" example
we've been using for some time.
Rob
Lennart Sorensen
> On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torv...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
> agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
> models better your intentions than GPLv3.
I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same
spirit as the GPL v2. I guess it comes down to what people thought the
spirit of the GPL v2 was. There certainly seems to be a variety of
opinions on that, and I am not sure the FSF's opinion on it agrees with
what most others believe, but that would be rather difficult to
determine.
--
Len Sorensen
Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
> license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd
> like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the
> earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so?
No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a
misunderstanding. Now it's been limited to "consumer devices" (after I
pointed out some of the _obvious_ problems with the original language),
and the only people who called anything a "misunderstanding" were the ones
that tried to point to *other* points in the license altogether (ie there
was also a "drm section", which didn't really seem to say anything much at
all).
Rms calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I
find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo
never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact
that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content
producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware.
The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not cover boot loaders and
hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware
can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only
a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care.
> Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of
> two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or
> preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the
> former.
No, it was not the former. And I think the whole "the kernel developers
misunderstand the license" crap that the FSF was saying (several times)
was very trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of
the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by
pointing to *another* part of the license.
And you're just parrotting their idiotic line.
> Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
> agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
> models better your intentions than GPLv3.
And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I "misunderstood" the
"spirit of the GPL".
Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better
than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other*
things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2,
does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the
license.
I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is
the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago,
and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't
think so.
> Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris
> very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting
> others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect
> others' freedoms, has never been what moved you. Rather, you seem to
> perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution,
> rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires. In
> fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago.
I have said *exactly* that many many times.
The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and
you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.
I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's
what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies)
can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair.
The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a
reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_
confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they
did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because
the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do.
> In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it
> didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms.
That's a lot of bullshit. You are apparently the grand poobah, and can
decide _which_ freedoms and for _what_ others' that matter.
I respect peoples freedoms too. I just disagree with the FSF on what that
slippery word means.
The fact that you are unable to even apparently fathom this fundamental
issue, and that the FSF thinks that they own the definition of "freedom"
is _your_ problem.
You're acting like some Alice-in-Wonderland character, saying that your
definition of words is the only one that matter. And that others are
"confused". Read up on your humpty-dumpty some day.
I'm damn fed up with the FSF being the "protector of freedoms", and also
feeling that they can define what those freedoms mean.
The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what
the words mean to suit their agenda.
Linus
Alan Cox
> never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact
Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
interpretation.
> The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what
> the words mean to suit their agenda.
Agreed - everyone contributed to the kernel based upon the GPLv2. Lots of
different reasons, lots of different viewpoints about GPL2 v GPL3, DRM ,
Treacherous Computing, etc. The commonality is not political, not a
grand plan, not a grand unified social agenda but a bunch of people for
whom the GPLv2 was an acceptable license for furthering their intentions
whether that is education for all, a shared commons or just making a
quick buck
Alan
Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo
> > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact
>
> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> interpretation.
Well, even the FSF lawyers did, but one of the reasons I never wanted to
do the copyright assignments(*) is exactly because I think people need to
make their own judgments on what the GPLv2 means. In the end, the only
thing that really matters is what a judge says (after appeals etc), and
the fact is, any license will always have gray areas where people disagree
about interpretation.
And I actually am of the very firm opinion that a world with gray areas
(and purple, and pink, and green) is a hell of a lot better than one where
everything is black-and-white. Only lawyers want a black-and-white world.
So I would actually *encourage* other people to sue over their GPLv2
interpretations, as they have done in Germany (and as IBM has done in the
US). I'd sue based on _my_ reading of it, but hey, while my opinion is
obviously always correct, I recognize that I live in a world where not
everybody else always sees that.
[ (*) Obviously, the *biggest* reason not to do copyright assignments is
that they are just a total pain in the ass to do, and cause tons of
totally pointless paperwork. So "Linus is lazy and not interested in
being a lawyer" is obviously the primary reason for the lack of
assignments. I'm just much happier with people owning their own code
outright. ]
Of course, I also realize that suing people over license violations is a
big pain in the ass, and in that sense while I "encourage" people to
assert their own copyrights, I would obviously also say that it's almost
certainly not worth doing if it's in a "gray" area. But that, in the end,
has to be the copyright owners own decision!
> > The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what
> > the words mean to suit their agenda.
>
> Agreed - everyone contributed to the kernel based upon the GPLv2. Lots of
> different reasons, lots of different viewpoints about GPL2 v GPL3, DRM ,
> Treacherous Computing, etc. The commonality is not political, not a
> grand plan, not a grand unified social agenda but a bunch of people for
> whom the GPLv2 was an acceptable license for furthering their intentions
> whether that is education for all, a shared commons or just making a
> quick buck
Indeed. And it's _fine_ to even be in it "just to make a quick buck". We
do want all kinds of input. I think the community is much healthier having
lots of different reasons for people wanting to be involved, rather than
concentrating on just some specific reason.
For some it's the technology. For some it's the license. For some it's
just a thing to pass boredom. Others like to learn. Whatever. It's all
good!
Linus
Alexandre Oliva
> I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same
> spirit as the GPL v2. I guess it comes down to what people thought the
> spirit of the GPL v2 was.
So let's go back to the preamble, that provides motivations and some
guidance as to the interpretation of the legal text (i.e., the spirit
of the license):
[...] the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your
freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software
is free for all its users. [...]
[...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get
it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of
it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
it.
[...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
this spirit?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Alexandre Oliva
> What I don't understand about the GPLv3 with keys is why that depends on the
> use case. As user of commercial devices like company routers, firewalls and
> such, which often are Linux based, I don't want them sealed by the vendor,
> as well. An explicit statement is even worse than an implicit one (as in
> the GPLv2, which has been tested in a German court by Harald Welte -
> Siemens had to turn in the keys).
My personal guess as to the reasoning behind this decision is that
consumer devices are the ones that require most attention, mainly
because the home users are the ones with least (individual) power to
demand respect for their freedoms.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
> the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
> this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get
> it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of
> it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
>
> To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
> anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
> rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
> for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
> it.
>
> [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
> for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>
>
> Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
> this spirit?
What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Can you prove that God doesn't
exist?"
The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says
that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.
So the whole "to protect these rights, we take away other rigths" argument
hinges on the false premise that the new language in GPLv3 is somehow
needed. It's not. You still had the right to distribute the software (and
modify it), even if the *hardware* is limited to only one version.
In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted,
and yes, I think that violates the spirit of the GPLv2 preamble!
Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can
not use this software to make a weapon". Do you see the problem? It
restricts peoples rights, would you agree? Would you _also_ agree that it
doesn't actually follow that "To protect your rights" logic AT ALL?
And this is exactly where the GPLv3 *diverges* from the above logic. If I
build hardware, and sell it with software installed, you can still copy
and modify the software. You may not do so within the confines of the
hardware I built, but the hardware was never under the license in the
first place.
In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it protects
them. It does *not* cause any additional stated freedoms - quite the
reverse. It tries to free up stuff that was never mentioned in the first
place.
And then the FSF has the gall to call themselves the "protector of
freedoms", and claim that everybody else is evil. What a crock.
In other words, if you want to argue for the changes in GPLv3, you need to
CHANGE THE PREAMBLE TOO! You should change:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs, that you can do so in place on your devices,
even if those devices weren't licensed under the GPL; and that
you know you can do these things.
where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if
those devices weren't licensed under the GPL".
That wasn't there in the original. Yet it's what the GPLv3 tries to shove
down our throats in the name of "freedom".
I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last six
years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going on. And
it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes "protecting your
freedom" is *anything*but*!
Linus
Alexandre Oliva
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
>> license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd
>> like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the
>> earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so?
> No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a
> misunderstanding.
It was claimed that GPLv3 would forbid implementations of DRM. That's
just plain false. If you don't think so, please show what terms in
the latest draft prohibit DRM (as opposed to merely making it
ineffective, a necessary consequence of abiding by the spirit of all
GNU GPLs)
> It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF
> even acknowledged that.
Another misunderstanding. The FSF never said TiVo didn't do anything
wrong. It only said it didn't think there was a license violation. I
personally disagree with that assessment, but IANAL.
Anyhow, deciding whether it's right or wrong is not the same as
deciding whether it's legal or illegal. Law doesn't define what's
right or wrong. That's what morals and ethics do.
> want to protect the integrity of that hardware.
> The kernel license covers the *kernel*.
When they choose to include a copy of the kernel in their hardware
that they can modify but others can't, they're failing to comply with
the spirit of the license. For brevity, I won't repeat the quotes
from the GPLv2 preamble, that I just included in the message I sent to
Lennart Sorensen in this same thread. Can you justify how you came to
the conclusion (if you did) that TiVo is abiding by the spirit of the
license?
>> Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of
>> two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or
>> preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the
>> former.
> No, it was not the former.
Wow, I didn't see that coming. Public admission of ill intentions?
;-) :-D :-P
> And I think the whole "the kernel developers misunderstand the
> license" crap that the FSF was saying (several times) was very
> trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of
> the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by
> pointing to *another* part of the license.
Let me see if I got this right. There was a section entitled
"3. Digital Restrictions Management" in GPLv3dd1. Are you saying
that, when people complained about the DRM clause, they actually meant
the provisions in "1. Source Code", that established a requirement to
include the source code corresponding to functional signatures, namely
the signing keys, as part of the corresponding source code?
> And you're just parrotting their idiotic line.
Please watch your tone. If you find offense at the allegedly
condescending tone in which the FSF says "misunderstanding", how do
you expect me and the FSF to take this?
It is also odd that you claim the right to be entitled to your own
opinion and reading about stuff, while denying myself the same right.
Please don't do that. I have a mind of my own, and the fact that I
reach similar conclusions doesn't make me a parrot. Even more so when
I actually have some influence on those conclusions.
>> Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
>> agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
>> models better your intentions than GPLv3.
> And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I "misunderstood" the
> "spirit of the GPL".
> Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better
> than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other*
> things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2,
> does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the
> license.
> I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is
> the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago,
> and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't
> think so.
You are definitely confused. You're talking about the legal terms,
while I'm talking about the spirit. The legal terms tried to reflect
the spirit as best as they could, but they left some holes. Some
people found them and started exploiting them.
Sure, if you want to leave those holes unplugged in your code, that's
your decision. I don't doubt that the GPLv2 legal terms fit the bill
for you. I think GPLv3 would do even better in this regard. But none
of this is about the spirit of the GPL. Claiming GPLv3 changes the
spirit is totally missing the point of what the spirit amounts to.
The spirit is described in the preamble, it's not the legal terms.
> The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat"
> license,
Ok, let's explore this argument. In what sense is it tit-for-tat?
What is tit-for-tat about it? What is the payback an author who
releases software under the GPL can legitimately expect to get?
>> In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it
>> didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms.
> That's a lot of bullshit. You are apparently the grand poobah, and can
> decide _which_ freedoms and for _what_ others' that matter.
The freedoms I'm talking about are very clearly described in the
spirit (preamble) of the license you chose for your project. Go look
at the preamble one more time, "grand poobah" ;-)
[...] the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your
freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software
is free for all its users [...]
[...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge
for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can
get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use
pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do
these things.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Alexandre Oliva
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo
>> > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact
>> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
>> interpretation.
> Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
Only courts of law can do that.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Jörn Engel
>
> The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and
> you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.
One could even add that "tit-for-tat" appears to be the best strategy
in game theory for continuous runs of the prisoners dilemma. At times I
wonder why game theory isn't taught in schools yet - it might shorten
discussions like these.
Jörn
--
All art is but imitation of nature.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Alexandre Oliva
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
>> the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>> this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get
>> it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of
>> it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
>>
>> To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
>> anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
>> rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
>> for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
>> it.
>>
>> [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
>> for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>>
>>
>> Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
>> this spirit?
> What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Can you prove that God doesn't
> exist?"
By this reasoning, it sounds like you've been claiming that "God does
exist", even though you can't prove it.
It shouldn't be anywhere that difficult to show that the GPLv3 fails
to meet the spirit of the GPLs. You just have to show a single
counter-example. Since there are so many objections to the changes,
it shouldn't be that hard. Can you at least try?
> The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says
> that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.
Oh, good, let's take this one.
if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.
It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
Oops.
Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me.
Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit.
> In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted,
That's correct. They don't need to be restricted. The whole idea of
copyleft, implemented through the GPL, is not based on needs, but
rather on the wish to defend the freedoms established in the preamble
from those who would rather not respect them.
Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?
Do you deny that they can still do it themselves?
> Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can
> not use this software to make a weapon".
This would make GPLv3 a non-Free Software license.
But the GPLv3 last call draft doesn't say anything along these lines.
You can use the software as much as you like, even in DVRs, and even
to implement DRM in them, as long as you respect the users' freedoms
to change and share the software. Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it
is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the
device, you must tell the recipient how to do it. Otherwise, the
freedom to modify the program is being too severely limited.
And, in the particular case of TiVo, it's a case of distributing
incomplete source code, of refraining from including functional
portions of the source code.
> In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it
> protects them.
While you look at it from the point of view of TiVo, who wants to be
free to prohibit people from modifying the workings of the device it
sells while it can still modify it itself, and it does that in order
to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing
things they're legally entitled to do, I see a lot more prohibitions
than freedoms in what TiVo does. I don't understand why you'd stand
up for it. Is it more important that a single company be allowed to
impose prohibitions on others in order for its business model to work,
than to maintain the spirit of hacking and sharing that enabled Free
Software and Linux to flourish?
Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that
stopped people from modifying Linux in them?
> where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if
> those devices weren't licensed under the GPL".
You're mistakenly focusing on the device. As you say, the device is
not under the license.
What's under the license is the software in it. And that license
spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the
software.
> I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last
> six years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going
> on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes
> "protecting your freedom" is *anything*but*!
Is this why you're overreacting?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Daniel Hazelton
> On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torv...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because
> >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The
> >> > fact
> >>
> >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> >> interpretation.
> >
> > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
>
> Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
> prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
> and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
> Only courts of law can do that.
Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did is
entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what they
*DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever software they
want on their hardware. They have that right - its the "Free Software
Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license.
TiVO never stopped people from copying, modifying or distributing the code -
what they did was say "The code is GPL'd, the hardware is restricted" -
ie: "You can do what you want with the code, but you can only run compiled
version of it that we provide on our hardware". Why is that legal? Because
TiVO produces the hardware and sells it to you with a certain *LICENSE* -
because it does contain hardware covered under any number of patents. That
license grants you the right to use the patents - in this case algorithms -
provided you comply with the terms of the license. (Just like the GPL gives
you the right to copy, modify and distribute GPL'd code as long as you comply
with its terms)
If you believe otherwise then you are sadly mistaken. Now stop parroting the
FSF's worn and tired tripe.
DRH
PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting
kicked out of the FSF-LA
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
Daniel Hazelton
> On Wed, 13 June 2007 14:33:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and
> > you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.
>
> One could even add that "tit-for-tat" appears to be the best strategy
> in game theory for continuous runs of the prisoners dilemma. At times I
> wonder why game theory isn't taught in schools yet - it might shorten
> discussions like these.
>
> Jörn
With the sheer amount of sheeple[1] in the world (and on this list), I doubt
anything could make these discussions any shorter.
(While I hate thinking that sheeple are on this list, it is an unavoidable
fact. (I had hoped I wouldn't find any sheeple here, as my favorite theory is
that they are all "Fundamentalist Christians" like the "Creationist" fools))
DRH
1: Sheeple (n): People that act like sheep - ie: they cannot think or form
opinions for themselves and always look to someone else for their thoughts
and parrot the opinions of some "trusted" figure.
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
Neil Brown
> 1: Sheeple (n): People that act like sheep - ie: they cannot think or form
> opinions for themselves and always look to someone else for their thoughts
> and parrot the opinions of some "trusted" figure.
I recommend that you avoid definitions like this. Using them simply
makes you appear to have a very poor understanding of your fellow
humans.
"cannot" and "always" are absolutes that never apply (well, hardly
ever).
In my experience, most people do think for themselves and do form
opinions about areas where they have an interest/ability, and tend to
follow trusted others in areas where they have less interest or
ability.
The problem that I think you see is particularly the "parrot the
opinions" bit. When a person tries to argue a case based largely on
the opinion of someone else with little personal understanding, they
are in very risky territory. This is akin to 'fundamentalism' that
you also mentioned in your post.
Accusing people of arguing opinions that are not their own may well be
appropriate. Accusing them of not be able to think is not.
NeilBrown
Bongani Hlope
> On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torv...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF
> > says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.
>
> Oh, good, let's take this one.
>
> if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
> you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>
> So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
>
And they give you the same right that they had, which is obtain free software
that you can modify and redistribute. There's nothing in there that says they
should give you the tools they used after they received the software, which
is what you seem to be looking for.
> TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.
>
> It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
>
It does, can't you modify their kernel source? Where does it say you should be
able to run you modifications on the same hardware?
> Oops.
>
> Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me.
>
> Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit.
The only fear that I have with the whole Tivo saga, is that companies like
Dell can use the same thing to say: "Our hardware will only run Company's X
distribution of Linux".
Do we just hope users won't buy those Dell machines, or do you modify your
software license to force Dell to allow custom distributions to run on their
machines? Then where do we draw the line of "Software Licenses".
Daniel Hazelton
<snip>
> > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF
> > says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.
>
> Oh, good, let's take this one.
>
> if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
> you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>
> So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
>
> TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.
>
> It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
>
> Oops.
>
> Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me.
>
> Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit.
Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that doesn't fit
your preconceived beliefs? TiVO gives you every right to the Linux kernel
that they recieved. What they don't give you the right to do is use modified
versions on their *HARDWARE* - which they have *NEVER* given you any rights
to, except for "normal use". (And no, it isn't legal to put those 200G hard
drives in your TiVO no matter what you think)
> > In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted,
>
> That's correct. They don't need to be restricted. The whole idea of
> copyleft, implemented through the GPL, is not based on needs, but
> rather on the wish to defend the freedoms established in the preamble
> from those who would rather not respect them.
>
> Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
> from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?
Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on
their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T*
covered by the GPL.
Do you understand that, or do I need to break out the finger-puppets next ?
> Do you deny that they can still do it themselves?
>
> > Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can
> > not use this software to make a weapon".
>
> This would make GPLv3 a non-Free Software license.
>
> But the GPLv3 last call draft doesn't say anything along these lines.
>
> You can use the software as much as you like, even in DVRs, and even
> to implement DRM in them, as long as you respect the users' freedoms
> to change and share the software. Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it
> is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the
> device, you must tell the recipient how to do it. Otherwise, the
> freedom to modify the program is being too severely limited.
And this unnaturally restricts the freedom of hardware manufacturers. If they
add a custom, internal connector so a repair shop can restore the hardware to
its *FACTORY* state then it is "possible to install modified versions",
provided the person doing it has the specialized hardware needed.
And this is what the FSF, RMS and yes, *YOU*, Alexandre, fail to realize - the
GPL covers *ONLY* the software. It has *ZERO* legal standing when applied to
hardware. Not even the most draconian of MS EULA's tries to apply itself to
the hardware.
In the case of 99% of the hardware targeted by the clause of the GPLv3 you
elucidate on, the "ability to install modified versions of the software" was
*NOT* intended for that use, nor was it intended for *ANYONE* *EXCEPT*
trained service personell to have *ACCESS* to that functionality. Arguing
otherwise is just idiotic - I have never found a piece of "high tech"
hardware (like a TiVO) that was designed for the end-user to modify. (yes,
installing a new version of the linux kernel is "modifying" the system)
> And, in the particular case of TiVo, it's a case of distributing
> incomplete source code, of refraining from including functional
> portions of the source code.
And? They distribute the kernel source - as they recieved it - in compliance
with the GPL. Their additions - whether they be "modules" or just the UI - do
not, necessarily, fall under the GPL. (Yes, there have been discussions about
whether a kernel module is a derived work, but most of the time those
discussions ended "Legally they aren't, even though I feel they should be")
> > In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it
> > protects them.
>
> While you look at it from the point of view of TiVo, who wants to be
> free to prohibit people from modifying the workings of the device it
> sells while it can still modify it itself, and it does that in order
> to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing
> things they're legally entitled to do, I see a lot more prohibitions
> than freedoms in what TiVo does. I don't understand why you'd stand
> up for it. Is it more important that a single company be allowed to
> impose prohibitions on others in order for its business model to work,
> than to maintain the spirit of hacking and sharing that enabled Free
> Software and Linux to flourish?
What "Legally Entitled" things?
And... You do realize that almost every difference between the GPLv2 and the
GPLv3 is going to cause a hell of a lot of problems? The fact that the GPLv3
is designed to prevent things that RMS *PERSONALLY* finds distasteful - DRM
and the like - is a big turn-off for a *LOT* of people. (Personally I don't
like *ANY* version of the GPL, because there are chunks I have problems with)
> Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that
> stopped people from modifying Linux in them?
But you aren't talking about a "computer" here. You're talking about a
mass-market device that must comply with both US and International copyright
law - and that's just a TiVO. Other devices have other laws they have to
comply with - in the US the FCC's regulations control all radio devices, so
if you upload a modified linux kernel to your wireless router that gives it a
2000 foot range, you've just broken the law *AND* violated the license on the
hardware which states that you "won't modify it or the controlling
software" - in most cases "the controlling software" is just the firmware,
but with modern wireless hardware, the firmware is loaded by the OS.
> > where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if
> > those devices weren't licensed under the GPL".
>
> You're mistakenly focusing on the device. As you say, the device is
> not under the license.
But he isn't. The GPLv3 says, and I'll quote you here - "Per the GPLv3
(paraphrased), if it is possible to install modified versions of the covered
program in the device, you must tell the recipient how to do it."
From the latest version of the GPLv3:
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures,
authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute
modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified
version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure
that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case
prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
and:
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of
a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is
transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of
how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed
under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But
this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains
the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example,
the work has been installed in ROM).
So it's not just a designed in ability to run modified code - ie: running of
modified code is a feature meant for the user to take advantage of - but even
things like the connectors used to upload the operating software at the
factory that people now cannot have in a device that runs GPL(v3) covered
software unless they ship the related "Installation Information". In other
words, companies are no longer allowed to have a completely separate license
for hardware and software.
That, to me, reads like RMS got mad about TiVO and said "I don't like it, lets
add a clause making it wrong to the next GPL". Hell, that *IS* what happened,
and nothing the FSF or Eben Moglen says will convince me otherwise. It's the
same for the bits that were added after Novell signed their agreement with
MS.
> What's under the license is the software in it. And that license
> spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the
> software.
And since when did they have to enable people to use their hardware in
violation of the licensing agreement they implicitly agree to when opening
the package?
There is *NOTHING* stopping you from doing whatever you want with the code
that runs on a TiVO (or any similar device). You (and everyone that thinks
like you) are confusing a want to use the *HARDWARE* however you want with
your GPL granted "right" to do what you want with the *SOFTWARE*.
> > I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last
> > six years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going
> > on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes
> > "protecting your freedom" is *anything*but*!
>
> Is this why you're overreacting?
No, he's making a point. RMS and the FSF, in drafting GPLv3 to include the
language and clauses it does, is "protecting your freedom" the way a lot of
the post 9/11 changes to the US Federal code does it. (ie: by saying "no, you
can't do that anymore")
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
Daniel Hazelton
> On Wednesday June 13, dhaz...@enter.net wrote:
> > 1: Sheeple (n): People that act like sheep - ie: they cannot think or
> > form opinions for themselves and always look to someone else for their
> > thoughts and parrot the opinions of some "trusted" figure.
>
> I recommend that you avoid definitions like this. Using them simply
> makes you appear to have a very poor understanding of your fellow
> humans.
>
> "cannot" and "always" are absolutes that never apply (well, hardly
> ever).
In this case I gave a very hasty definition of the term, though it does fit
very well.
> In my experience, most people do think for themselves and do form
> opinions about areas where they have an interest/ability, and tend to
> follow trusted others in areas where they have less interest or
> ability.
Agreed. But those *aren't* "Sheeple".
> The problem that I think you see is particularly the "parrot the
> opinions" bit. When a person tries to argue a case based largely on
> the opinion of someone else with little personal understanding, they
> are in very risky territory. This is akin to 'fundamentalism' that
> you also mentioned in your post.
>
> Accusing people of arguing opinions that are not their own may well be
> appropriate. Accusing them of not be able to think is not.
I never accused any specific person of either. I was making an observation
about the general nature of humanity as I've observed it. A better definition
of "Sheeple" would be "Someone who continually parrots some "trusted" figures
opinion even when presented with proof that that opinion is in error. They
also, generally, do not "think deeply" on any topic."
And while I won't apologize to anyone that may have felt the "Sheeple" remark
was directed at them, I will apologize for not taking more time to choose a
better definition for the term originally.
DRH
> NeilBrown
> -
> 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/
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
Adrian Bunk
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torv...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because
> > >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The
> > >> > fact
> > >>
> > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> > >> interpretation.
> > >
> > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
> >
> > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
> > prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
> > and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
> > Only courts of law can do that.
>
> Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did is
> entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what they
> *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever software they
> want on their hardware. They have that right - its the "Free Software
> Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license.
The GPLv2 says:
"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
the executable."
The question is whether this includes private keys.
Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.
If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2 requires
them to give any costumer the private keys.
Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully convince
vendors that private keys are part of the source code if they are
required for running the compiled binary on some hardware.
AFAIK there haven't been any court rulings on this issue, and it could
even be that courts in different countries will decide differently.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Adrian Bunk
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torv...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF
> > > says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.
> >
> > Oh, good, let's take this one.
> >
> > if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
> > you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
> >
> > So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
>
> And they give you the same right that they had, which is obtain free software
> that you can modify and redistribute. There's nothing in there that says they
> should give you the tools they used after they received the software, which
> is what you seem to be looking for.
Wrong, the GPLv2 says:
"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
the executable."
The question is whether this includes private keys.
Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
Alexandre Oliva
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
>> you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>> So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
> And they give you the same right that they had, which is obtain free software
> that you can modify and redistribute. There's nothing in there that says they
> should give you the tools they used after they received the software, which
> is what you seem to be looking for.
Can they modify the software in their device?
Do they pass this right on?
>> TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.
>> It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
> It does, can't you modify their kernel source?
It's not the kernel source. That's not where the TiVo anti-tampering
machinery blocks modifications.
It's about that copy of the kernel that ships in the device in object
code. That's the one that TiVo customers ought to be entitled to
modify, if TiVo can modify it itself.
> Where does it say you should be able to run you modifications on the
> same hardware?
Where it says that you should pass on all the rights that you have.
While TiVo retains the ability to replace, upgrade, fix, break or make
any other change in the GPLed software in the device, it ought to pass
it on to its customers.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Alexandre Oliva
> On Wed, 13 June 2007 14:33:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and
>> you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.
> One could even add that "tit-for-tat" appears to be the best strategy
> in game theory for continuous runs of the prisoners dilemma.
It is, indeed.
Now the remaining piece of the proof is to show that the GPLv2 is
tit-for-tat.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Alexandre Oliva
> Accusing people of arguing opinions that are not their own may well be
> appropriate. Accusing them of not be able to think is not.
I agree with the latter, but the former is seldom appropriate. Any
accusation ought to be provable, and it's nearly impossible to prove
that an opinion held by someone is not his own. People quite often
arrive at similar opinions independently.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}