Torvalds "Pretty Pleased" With Latest GPLv3

Novus Ordo Seclorum writes "According to CNet, Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft. He said, 'Unlike the earlier drafts, it at least seems to not sully the good name of the GPL any more.' After his earlier criticism, some had questioned whether such controversies would lead to rifts in the community, especially if the kernel ended up under a different license than the GNU tools. But with the latest revisions, Linus will entertain moving the kernel over to the GPL v3."

Re:viral

[rehabdoll]

the gpl is not viral. Also, its just a license. If the copyright holder wants to he can relicense it to whatever he wants.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Misleading summary?

[penp]

If you actually read the article, he specifies:

"Whether it's actually a better license than the GPLv2, I'm still a bit skeptical, but at least it's now 'I'm skeptical' rather than 'Hell no!'"

I just think the summary of this article is a bit misleading. It makes it sound like he's completely for switching to the GPLv3, when after reading the article I found he's still a bit skeptical.

Torvalds was noncommittal about whether he might try to move the Linux kernel to GPL 3--a change that would require the permission not just of Torvalds but also of all other Linux kernel copyright holders. But he didn't rule it out. "The current draft makes me think it's at least a possibility in theory, but whether it's practical and worth it is a totally different thing," he said. "Practically speaking, it would involve a lot of work to make sure everything relevant is GPLv3-compatible even if we decided that the GPL 3 is OK."

Re:Move over?

[ZachPruckowski]

Parts of the kernel are licensed "GPL version 2 or later" (which can roll over automatically), and a lot of the lines of code are owned by a few large companies [infoworld.com]. So you can get a large percentage of the code just by getting Red Hat, IBM, Intel, Novell, etc. on board. That's not all the code, but it would represent a substantial amount of the code without having to go "door to door" with the contributors.

Re:Glad and relieved

[GundamFan]

He is a demigod in the community... If he doesn't like GPLv3 at all, and has a good reason, it is going to be a hard sell.

License upgrades by proxy

[tepples]

One immediate question I would have is whether he would leave in the "or any later version" clause this time or remove it again.

The annotated diff between GPLv3 draft 1 and GPLv3 draft 2 [fsf.org], page 59, section 14, footnote 103, suggests a new method to handle this: "or any later version approved by Linus Torvalds".

Re:viral

[ClosedSource]

"Commercial licenses are also viral, most of licenses do NOT allow you to redistribute/resell products using their tools/librairies, unless you pay an extravagant fee."

And this is viral how? Whether you believe the GPL is viral or not, the fundemental difference is that commerical licenses don't require you to distribute your indepedently written source code even if it's based on their libraries. As far as fees are concerned, many allow you to use their libraries simply because you paid for the tool with no per machine license.

this just means he's not puking on it

[Russ Nelson]

The lede and the story don't have quite the same spin. If you read the story it's clear that Linus is pretty pleased that they've gotten rid of the worst aspects in the previous draft. He's no longer puking all over this draft but he's by no means ready to switch.

Re:Interesting..

[itsdapead]

Slow news day? :)

No, vitally important news for the future of the free/open source software movement day.

The linux kernel is pretty important to (duh) most linux distributions. However, so is a load of Free Software Foundation-controlled stuff, not least the compilers, make tools, standard C libraries, and shedloads of userland utilities from the "ls" command through to EMACS... plus the GPL license itself. If the two factions fall out then it can only be bad for Linux and other FOSS.

Slighty satirized and only approximately true capsule summary of the problem:

The FSF wants - quite badly - to move to the GPLv3 to prevent "TiVOization" (using GPL code in a hardware device but with DRM-type tricks that stops users changing the code) and, more recently, to stop future Novell/Microsoft FUD campaigns.

Linus and other linux kernel contributors want - quite badly - to keep the GPLv2 because:

1. if it ain't broke, don't fix it;
2. TiVO etc. may be irksome but isn't worth the risk of "fixing" the GPLv2 (as programmers they understand this!)
3. Did we mention "If it aint broke, don't fix it"?
4. Previous drafts of the GPLv3 contained scary-sounding clauses about patents and use of encryption that, whatever their intention or precise legal meaning, would have had commercial GPL users running for the long grass.
5. Unlike FSF, "Linux" doesn't ask contributors to hand over copyright - so while FSF can change the license for the next version of gcc at the stroke of a pen, "Linux" can't change the license on the kernel without getting approval from hundreds of people, some of whom have inevitably emmigrated, died, gone to jail or, tragically, got jobs at Microsoft.
6. "Look, I was up burning the midday oil the other week because I decided to 'just fix' some code that wasn't really that broken so, take it from me, if it ain't seriously broke don't fix it!"

The pro-FSF lobby countered these concerns with:

1. Trust us, we're lawyers and academics
2. Feel free to comment on the detailed wording but we're not changing our mind about the principles
3. If you're against GPLv3 you must be for software patents and TiVOization

At which point ISTR Linus (or someone claiming to be he) said a Bad Word on Groklaw and PJ made him go and stand in the Naughty Corner until he had learned to control his potty mouth :-)

Then when the new draft of the GPLv3 appears it turns out that although the FSF have stuck to their guns they have been listening and have done some substantial re-drafting.

If Linus and the FSF are talking nicely again it can only be good news - even if Groklaw's swear box takings go down.

Re:Bribed.

[ttrafford]

Linus spends his time reviewing submitted patches, AIUI. It's project management, but a required part of development on a largish scale.

Re:Bribed.

[Otto]

You know.
Ken [wikipedia.org].

Re:"or any later version" insanity

[vux984]

That's just insane and I don't understand why a "good" organization like FSF, which also probably tries to educate people, even has such a potentially dangerous clause in their license.

Why is it insane? There is nothing potentially dangerous about it.

Your code doesn't become 'GPLv3 or later' when GPLv3 comes out, it STAYS 'GPLv2 or later', meaning it is now available to someone who wants to use it under either the v2 or v3 licenses.

Thus there is no danger that at some point in the future someone won't be able to use your code with all the rights you assigned to it when you licensed it v2 or later.

However, if someone down the road likes v5, and starts up a GPLv5 project and they want to use your code, they can. Because at that point your code will be available under v2, v3, v4, and v5.

Thus the absolute WORST case of releasing your code as 'GPLv2 or later' is that one day the FSF will release a license you don't like, and people using it will still be allowed to use your code.

IE, the worst case is that future users will have MORE rights to use your code than they have today, if the GPL were to become even less restrictive (e.g. became, say, a BSD-like license). After all if the GPL gets more restrictive people can ALWAYS use your code with ALL the rights of GPLv2.

I think for nearly all of us, that is pretty much a non-issue. The odds the GPL will become less restrictive than v2 is practically zilch. And even if it did, no harm could come to people who want to use our code.

Mixing GPL versions...

[tjwhaynes]

The kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2. Some terms allow for it to be "v2 or later", meaning someone can use the code in a GPLv3 kernel. Software companies could also go to dual-licensing and offer it under v2 or v3. Then you could use that code in either a GPLv2 kernel or a GPLv3 kernel. You can't have a part-v3, part-v2 kernel because of license incompatibilities. Thus a kernel would be offered as either pure v2 or pure v3.

No - the kernel is currently distributed under GPL v2 BUT it is not entirely comprised of GPL v2 only code. 40% of the Linux kernel has the "or later versions" message intact and can be trivially relicensed.

How much of the Linux kernel is GPLv2? [blogspot.com]

GPL v2 and GPL v3 code can be compiled into a single entity without issue. What you can't do is take some GPL v2 code, rewrite part of it and call it GPL v3. Aggregation of code has never been an issue.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:viral

[EsbenMoseHansen]

It doesn't really matter, because if Linus wanted to, he could start releasing changes to the Linux kernel under GPLv3 (and it specifically said GPLv3) -- so the old code would be under GPLv2 (or really, whatever version of the GPL you preferred, because unless you specifically say what version of the GPL applies, people can pick whichever version of the GPL they want. Read section 9 from the GPL [gnu.org] for more on that) and the new Linus provided code would be GPLv3, with all the baggage that entails.

Not really, because the kernel is explicitly states it is licensed under version 2. To quote the COPYING file:

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.

Bits and pieces are GPLv2 or later, though

*Ahem*

[warrax_666]

http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Yes, there are some things you cannot do due to this being a user-space implementation, but for many purposes it is (will be once it reaches 1.0) sufficient.

most GPLv2 projects?

[s-gen]

"I doubt Linux is moving off of GPLv2 anytime soon, though. I doubt most GPLv2 projects are,"
Its not a problem with most projects. Its only a problem with projects like the kernel where the "or later version" clause is missing.

Re:Tivo-ization

[TuringTest]

It's the same principal as downloading music. It isn't theft since it's only a copy of something which continues to exist. And anybody who is doing it probably wouldn't bother to do the entire project from scratch (ie, wouldn't buy the album). It doesn't diminsh or affect the value of the original code.

A better analogy would be if you were a musician who downloaded an album, studied the songs, then starting to play concerts using those songs and forbidding your public to make recordings.

If you've beneffited from freely obtaining the material in the first place, which right do you have to forbid others to do the same with your value-added work?

Re:Interesting..

[init100]

I wondered when you would show up.

If someone wants to use a new license that he doesn't like then somehow attempts to wrangle control from him so that it could be used

We've been though this before. I don't agree that GPLv3 userspace software running on top of a GPLv2 kernel will "wrangle control from him" or "add restrictions to the kernel".

I don't think any of his complaints were based around the intended goals of the GPLv3 but the way they were implemented.

On the contrary, I think it is pretty clear that he opposed the DRM part from the start, and that this microscopic softening w.r.t. GPLv3 is in part caused by a watering-down of that section. Preventing DRM to restrict the freedom of GPL-covered software was one of the primary goals, so I think it is quite wrong to claim that he only opposed the implementation.

Linus isn't an idiot.

I never said he was. He is a very fine engineer, but that does not make him a deity when it comes to legal matters.

Linus had some good objections and had to spell out why v3 code as the license stood couldn't go into GPLv2 software.

I don't think that GPLv3 code going into GPLv2 software is a high priority with the FSF. The important part is that GPLv2 code can go into GPLv3 software (except for code licensed as "GPLv2 only").

If the license is written correctly,

The word correctly is subjective in this context. What is the correct way to write the license to achieve one goal may be incorrect to achieve another goal.

it could because the GPL says the future versions of the license needed to be in the same spirit of the GPL.

I cannot see how GPLv3 code can go into GPLv2 code with anything else than effectively forcing the GPLv3 to become the GPLv2, and thus making it redundant. GPLv3 code will naturally close certain loopholes in the GPLv2, which will make it impossible for GPLv3 code to go into software where those license loopholes are still present.

Re:Interesting..

[try_anything]

the Trusted Computing Group is busy making every PC into a Tivo

Aha! Thank you for making this connection for me. I was having trouble giving a damn about this whole issue, but now I see it makes a huge difference not just for consumer electronics but for the PC hardware I'm going to (be forced to) buy in the next five years. Companies that make hardware impossible to use from open software should not be allowed to leech off GPL'ed code to do so.