Slashdot Log In
Should Developers Switch to GPLv3?
Posted by
Cliff
on Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:23 AM
from the how-much-better-is-it-than-v2? dept.
from the how-much-better-is-it-than-v2? dept.
Isaac IANAL asks: "Victor Loh of ExtremeTech writes about the General Public License version 3's clause, which requires releasing digital signature keys — in other words, the software should be able to retain interoperability when modified. The article raises an objection, citing Linus Torvalds, that the so-called TiVoisation clause would inhibit open-source adoption in embedded devices among entities such as governments, health care providers, and finance firms. The issue has been discussed on Slashdot many times before. If you're a developer for a platform that needs to run signed code, could you use software under the GPLv3, or does the GPLv3 (at its current, unreleased state) truly inhibit your control as a developer over your device?"
Related Stories
[+]
News: Torvalds Critiques of GPLv3 and FSF Refuted 548 comments
j00bar writes "After Linus Torvalds' impassioned critiques of the second draft of GPLv3 and the community process the FSF has organized, Newsforge's Bruce Byfield discovered in conversations with the members of the GPLv3 committees that the committee members disagree; they believe not only has the FSF been responsive to the committees' feedback but also that the second draft includes some modifications in response to Torvalds' earlier criticisms." NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
[+]
News: Why Torvalds is Sitting out the GPLv3 Process 365 comments
lisah writes "Linus Torvalds has a lot of reasons for not wanting to participate in drafting the third version of the GNU General Public License (GPL): He doesn't like meetings, says committees don't make sense, has philosophical differences with the Free Software Foundation, and seems to be generally distrustful of the whole drafting process. Though Torvalds prefers the GPLv2, he says if others prefer the GPLv3, they ought to support it because 'it's not like it kills and eats small children for breakfast, and must never be allowed.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
[+]
News: MySQL Changes License To Avoid GPLv3 311 comments
munchola writes "MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses for its database to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPLv3. CBRonline is reporting that Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, noting it was made 'in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not yet (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not yet -- "GPLv3" Should Become "SGPL"? (Score:5, Interesting)
This shouldn't be named "GPLv3" when done and finalized. If they do that, there will be a big clusterfuck of confusion and uncertainty, coming from "GPL" softwares with crucially differing GPL versions -- v2 vs. v3 -- and this will harm business adoption of open-source software. Not completely clueful managers and officers get confused, they lose face, so they go elsewhere. (That is, stay with closed-source.)
"GPLv3" should be named "Stricter GPL -- SGPL" (or something like that), and "GPLv2" should be kept just "GPL" -- the familiar and famous thing that nobody has a problem with.
And anybody responding that we FSF hippies don't give a damn what the corporate world wants or needs... I understand the sentiment ("we do tools for ourselves and that's all"), but it would be good to have FOSS spread further, and in the biz domain any such ambiquity or other "perception problem" can be a bigger problem than anything related to quality or technology. Make the GPLv3 into what you want, but make it clearly separate from the current well-established GPL.
Parent
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I sit down and from scratch write a kernel I can release it under the GPL v2, v3, v8 and seventeen differrent closed licenses with no problems at all other than going mad from reading all of the legal junk that's required to define each one.
It would only impact on me if I decided to use someone else's work as the basis for mine, or as part of mine, and then I would either have to comply with their license or do the work myself. Doesn't seem that hard to me.
You've just described GPLv2 (Score:2)
GPLv2 was purely a copyright license (the FSF's "copyleft" is based in copyright, and only comes into effect when issues of copyright are engaged). Everyone knew that the license could never impact on your usage of any GPL'd software, onl
The licence doesn't say that (Score:3, Informative)
GPLv3 only puts restrictions on redistribution, not on use. (Just like v2.)
and look at the licence (Score:2)
This is borrowed from other free software licences. From the late 90s onward, many companies wrote their own free software licences, and many included patent retaliation clauses like this. GPLv3 is copying them.
That you haven't seen this before and that you have a hard time pigeonholing GPLv3 is a reflection of you, not the licence.
If you have a comment about the licence, please make it at gplv3.fsf.org (as well as discussing it in whate
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Define use and distribution (Score:2)
And what about network services (such as webpages)?
If you take the game I wrote, I think it's ok to modify it to adapt to the gaming gadget you made. You don't want to release the code for that modification because you don't want to help the eventual competition, or that glue code would reveal details of your hardware. So far, so good.
But if you start modifying the game core, I want you to contribute back. Maybe the solution to this
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The philosophy is the same. The primary motivating goal behind the GPL has always been to enable the end user the freedom to modify the software that they receive, in whatever fashion, and be able to share the software they're using (modified or not) with others. Patents inhibit that freedom. The restrictions on someone who uses patents as a weapon against Free Software are ONLY to the acts of modifying and distributing it, which is completely within copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
This is ignjoring the principles of free software. Or at least how they have been explained to me over these past 10 or so years. If I code something, Say a Kernel that does percises calculations 20 times faster and more acuratly then currently availible, and release it under GPLv3 as it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you buy a PC, you buy a PC running Windows. Presumably you'd have no objection if all the PC manufacturers were required by Microsoft to implement code signing support so that unsigned Linux wouldn't run?
No, don't be *that guy* (Score:4, Insightful)
GPLv3 is the worst of the series, IMO. Where it fails is in its insistence that if you want to be part of the community that you basically have to turn over every single thing to the whole community before you get the blessing to participate. Got a patent? Sorry, bud, check that at the door. Want to run specialized programs that require secrecy of code? Not on this platform, man. Want to mingle your closed code with our open widget? Give up all your source first.
It's not inviting at all except to anyone who has more to gain than lose from such a relationship. So what you get is a bunch of people who are actually leeches creating programs that no one else outside the community can even look at for fear of contamination.
If you want to share, then share. If you want to profit off of others and view everyone that looks at your code without contribution as suspicious, choose the new GPL. (The Artistic License for example, before it became GPL-compatible, was actually very cool and was able to gain a very large and loyal following for the Perl language. People contributed out of a sense of community, not out of coercion or because they were collecting a paycheck to do it.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The parent got the gist of it.
I have participated in projects which involved patents and resulted in sellable products - and every single line of code (protocol stacks, device drivers, bug fixes etc) that was not crucial to the heart of the customized product were released as open source. It didn't make any sense not to. We always used BSD codebases, though, somewhat wary as to what mess GPLv2 might get us into. With GPLv3, GPL'd code would not even enter the consideration.
One must also remember that ma
Re:No, don't be *that guy* (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, I don't see it that way at all. Yes, you have to turn over enough that the community can actually use the code you're giving back to them, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me. To give back modifications that are useless to the community because of patents or hardware DRM is to spit in the face of what the GPL is all about.
Parent
Re:No, don't be *that guy* (Score:5, Interesting)
Keeping these points in mind, let's look at your examples:
If you are really interested in building a community, choose a license that
So if I decide to stop contributing to your GPL3 project, I have to surrender my copyright to the code I've contributed? That's news to me.
[GPL3 forces you] to turn over every single thing to the whole community before you get the blessing to participate.
This is not true. First, no one is forcing you to use this license. You make it out to sound like the FSF will shun you unless you use only this specific license, which is not true. Second, GPL3 does not force you to give up everything. You still hold the copyright to code your wrote, so you can also release it under other licenses. If you release a trademarked program, you can specify how you wish for the mark to be used.
Got a patent? Sorry, bud, check that at the door.
See freedoms 2 and 3.
Want to run specialized programs that require secrecy of code? Not on this platform, man. Want to mingle your closed code with our open widget? Give up all your source first.
You do not state the technical manner in which the "secrecy" and "mingling" is happening. Depending on this, these could very well be prohibited by the GPL2, completely invalidating them as fodder for your diatribe.
So what you get is a bunch of people who are actually leeches
This is pretty hilarious. How does the new GPL allow people to "leech" anything? No one is being forced to use this license. I'm guessing you're talking about those evil guys who will no doubt incorporate BSD code into their GPL3 programs. Yeah, those guys are totally violating the spirit of that license. Oh wait.
no one else outside the community can even look at for fear of contamination.
This is no different from looking at code that implements a software patent, or signing an NDA to look at proprietary code.
If you want to profit off of others and view everyone that looks at your code without contribution as suspicious, choose the new GPL.
If by "profit" you mean "allow everyone the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute my code while preventing others from taking away these freedoms", then I agree with you. That's a pretty good profit derived from using this license.
Also, I fail to see how choosing the GPL3 would force me to view those who study my code as "suspicious".
In all, I fail to see how any of your points are really valid. You fail to actually define what you mean by key words in your argument. Of course, this allows you to shield yourself from having to debate any real issues, such as the meaning of "freedom", "rights", or "responsibilities". So perhaps this was intentional.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
should they? (Score:2)
I myself have a question which is not entirely off topic, which somone might be able to answer. Can I release a document which I've written under the GPL if it is not software, say an article or something? I would want people to be able to use my work in a fair way, and after I'm de
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html [gnu.org]
Some people think it is antithetical to the purported aims of the GPL and the FSF.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See www.creativecommons.org for more info.
what's wrong with v3? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it expected that licenses will evolve as technmology changes, and as loopholes are exploited
complexity and length (Score:2)
For 15 years, people said "GPL is too long, write a 1-page version", but now that the licence is online for rewriting, and people are invited and asked to come to gplv3.fsf.org and suggest changes - where are the suggestions for what bits can be removed?
The length=bugs idea is a silly port of something that is kinda true in software but not really in legal documents. If it was true, Microsoft's EULA would be meaningless due to the number of bugs it must con
Code needs to be used... (Score:2)
If a company like Tivo makes changes so the kernel can support a particular situation better they have to release the code back to the community. That's the purpose of the GPL.
While there are downsides to a company like Tivo preventing any 'foreign' software from running on the system the fact is it prevents them from having to deal with thousands of variations and means they choose how and what to support. The alternative is they use some
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't write a suitable clause, but I believe the issue with the GPL V3 draft is that it approaches the whole thing in the wrong way and so ends up overreaching. Instead I think that all the true concerns could be addressed by instead adding a clause to GPL V2 (I don't literally mean amend V2 I just mean the amount required to change for V3 would drop significantly) which prevents you from distributing the software with hardware unless the owner of the hardware can run any modified versions of the cod
The GPLv3 is not even done yet (Score:2)
Discussing the good and bad points of the current GPLv3 draft is valid and we should be doing that here. But to ask the question "should developers switch to it?" is immature and a little silly at this poi
Stop spreading confusion! (Score:5, Informative)
Spreading it is (either by ignorance or by malice) helping bad companies, like TiVo for instance.. Please read on the following to understand WHAT the GPL v3 draft says.
The draft version of the GPLv3 says that IF AND ONLY IF the software you want to run, needs some special digital signature, then and only then must the digital signatures acompany the source code.
So, what does all this blurb mean? Is Linus so obtuse he can't read english? No. So...?
I could understand it if he said that he felt he couldn't ignore the contributions of some hardware manufacturers, but what does he say? He says that GPLv3 "sucks" because it prevents legitimate businesses like those of TiVo. That if users don't like that hardware, they can use other hardware.
As usual, untrue pragmatism. The pragmatist doesn't idealize about perfect future conditions that may or may not happen. The true pragmatist solves the problem in a practical and definitive form: preventing the harm from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
By stipulating this, Stallman is implicitly calling for civil disob
Re:Stop spreading confusion! (Score:5, Informative)
No. You have misinterpreted.
Section 1201 of Title 17 (a.k.a. DMCA) defines circumvention as bypassing controls without authorization, and that authorization isn't something that comes from the law or the government -- it comes from the copyright holder. What the GPL is really doing here, is saying that the GPLed works' copyright holder grants authorization. If you withhold authorization (thereby triggering the malignancy of DMCA) then you have violated the license.
A lot of people seem to think that DMCA prohibits descrambling, but it really just prohibits descrambling without permission. If I hold the copyright on a CSS-protected movie and sell it to you, and I say "You may crack the CSS on this movie" then you legally may crack the CSS on that movie; you will not be violating Article 17 Section 1201. Now imagine if I had some little piece of a movie, such that lots of people wanted to make derived works of my movie fragment, and I licensed it under the condition "you, the licensee, may not forbid circumvention of CSS on your derived work." Then anyone who used my movie fragment, would have to allow CSS to be cracked on their movie. That's essentially what GPL3 is doing here.
It's not "locking horns" with the legal system; it's playing within the rules. And one of the rules is that the copyright holder may grant authorization to bypass.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I agree RMS is pushing very hard on the issue of DRM and the DMCA subverting the intent of the GPL but how does the GP
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's sad is that Linus sees what Tivo has done as "legitimate." Go back a few decades, Linus. When RMS couldn't maintain his laser printer driver, RMS could have just used other hardware. Obviously, RMS didn't like that idea. He didn't like it so much, that the GPL was invented practically as a response to that incident. GPL exists because "jus
Developers rights (Score:2)
If you are considering the GPL, choose if you want v2 or v3.
Personally I think the GPLv3 creates more problems than it solves.
read these first, they're a good base (Score:4, Informative)
For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences [fsfeurope.org]. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.
The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August [fsfeurope.org]. Here are the others:
Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page [fsfeurope.org].
Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Raise the quality of discussion? I'm curious...is your definition of a quality discussion in this context one which is supportive of RMS' position by default?
It's good to discuss what's actually in the text (Score:2)
Criticism and suggestions are useful.
The problem is that too often there are debates under the topic of "GPLv3" which are wholely unrelated to GPLv3. People debate ideas such as "Should GPLv3 prohibit DRM", when GPLv3 doesn't prohibit DRM at all, only tivoisation. Or people debate "What if I don't own the device? What about my work computer?
sheesh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes!
> or does the GPLv3 (at its current, unreleased state) truly inhibit your control as a developer over your device?"
No! Any more questions?
(Ok, if you want to get picky: it doesn't inhibit your control over "your" device, but it may inhibit your ability to inhibit others. You know--the people who actually OWN "your" device! But that's the whole point!)
This whole "requires releasing digital keys" nonsense has to go! Whoever invented that meme should be shot. And I don't care how many of you like his fucking kernel!
Everyone's talking like this is going to have huge effects. The fact is that there is really, so far, only one company that would have been affected, and they won't be affected because the Linux kernel devs long ago decided to stick with v2. And now the devs want to justify that decision by pointing out all the supposed flaws with v3. I'm not impressed with their reasoning.
People talk about voting machines. The solution there is easy. The software needs to provide a signature of the results AND the software together. Then you can easily detect tampering while still providing all the freedom necessary to fix problems.
Going with GPLv2-only is the WORST possible solution, as far as I can tell. That will guarantee license-incompatibility in the future. Frankly, I see nothing in the GPLv3 draft that would justify the kind of headaches that going to GPLv2-only would cause. In fact, I see nothing in the GPLv3 worth bitching about. Yes, it's new, yes, there's some controversy, but my god, I was there when the original GPL was released, and this controversy ain't nothin' compared to the shitstorm of controversy back then! Well, Stallman turned out to be basically right about the GPL in the first place, and, by comparison, I see nothing but tiny, incremental improvements this time around.
The GPLv3 will be happening, and I, and probably tens of thousands of others, will be using it. Get used to it!
By the end of the next decade, I predict that people choosing GPLv2-only licenses will be being cursed as roundly and solidly as those who chose non-dual-licensed MPL or Artistic are today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>be using it. Get used to it!
Yes...because as we all know, more than anything else the definition of freedom is having other people decide what happens without being able to do a thing about it ourselves.
Another wonderful example of one of RMS's fans demonstrating to us just how glorious Stallman's vision of freedom truly could be. Still think it looks appealing?
Code signing: WHO has the key? (Score:3, Informative)
Governments, healthcare providers, and finance firms don't need to be able to make sure their software can be maintained? They want to be locked into a single source?
This is such a bullshit argument. Nothing about GPL3 prevents you from making your own machine tamper-proof. What they're really talking about, is distributing widgets to other people such that the other people cannot maintain or "tamper with" the widget. Governments, healthcare providers, and finance firms do not need that. Only media companies [think they] need that.
From submitter:
Before you finish that question, let's get something straight. When that platform is deployed, the end user will have the ability to install or choose what key(s) (perhaps even the end user's own key) the platform will accept, right? If so, then I really don't think you're going to have a problem with GPL3.
If the end user will not be able to sign code themselves, then fuck off. You sure as hell aren't talking about using DRM as a security feature, because users are the party who are ultimately responsible for their own security. Nobody cares if your project is GPL3 compatable or not, and nobody cares if your project uses Linux, because Linux is almost useless, like any other OS, if users cannot get maintenance whenever they want it. If your project can't get bugs fixed or features added (including features that you, the developer, think are bad ideas) then your project might as well run MS Windows. Maybe Torvalds doesn't care about users anymore, but Linux didn't get all the other developers working on it (including the ones who wrote those free drivers that you salivate over) by fucking the users over. Linux attracted people and became a successful project by not being user-hostile.
v2 will stay (Score:2)
GPLv3 is one more option added, it will not erradicate GPLv2 (duh), so why all the fuss?
Well, I can tell one reason: to help developers be aware of these questions, and decide carefuly which license to use. The best one will depend on each situation. I understand Linus' concerns, he's pobrably right picking v2.
Just make it easy for everyone: (Score:2)
There, was that so hard?
How I really feel (Score:2, Troll)
A lot of people have criticised Linus for the amount he has said about this...in my own mind, he hasn't gone nearly far enough. IMHO he needs to publically confront Stallman, and then move the ker
Re: (Score:2)
The FSF are not involved in Linux, they just know that a significant usage of the Gnu software is on Linux. For every argument that Linux rode on Gnu there is probably an equal counter argument, I would suggest the two are simply codependant (without Gnu Linux is unlikely to have ever left x86 and certainly wouldn't have done it so quickly, without Linux RMS's dream of fully free computers would probably be a long way back). Linux has helped the FSF, the FSF has helped Linux.
Now to more serious matters
Re:How I really feel (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, Linux is only a kernel. Did you somehow forget what else comes with a GNU/Linux distribution? The shells? The binary utilities? The network managers?
Last time I checked, Linux was best built with a GCC toolchain. That's right, a GNU C compiler is used to build Linux. Oh, and you should be using GNU make to configure it.
The FSF and its GNU project provide support utilities for virtually every Linux distro out there right now. Sadly, most of them, excepting Debian and its derivatives, have thrown away their acknoledgement of GNU and its importance in making Linux work. That is exactly how you talk -- as if GNU has done nothing for Linux.
What I hear from you is nothing more than fanboy's prattle. You honestly believe that Linux owes nothing to the FSF? NOTHING?
Without GNU, I would not have the following utilities:
Still feel that Linux doesn't need the GNU project or the FSF? Well, fine. Just don't call me an "uncompromising, radical, neo-Bolshevik extremist" anymore.
Parent
Entirely missing the point of the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
"Your" device? Once you've sold it to a customer, it's ceased to be "your" device. If a customer buys a device that runs GPLed software, they have the freedom to replace that software as they see fit. That's entire purpose of the GPL: to grant end users freedom. Complaining that the GPLv3 inhibits a developer's control over their device is like complaining that GPLv2 inhibits a developer's control over their software. Congratulations on identifying the core purpose of the GPL.
Next week on Ask Slashdot: "Can you use the Bill of Rights in your dictatorship, or does the it truly inhibit your control as a dictator over your citizens?"
Question of authenticity (Score:2)
Would trying to release software under the GPL3 for the device controvine the GPL3?
The idea would be that voting machines, medical devices, and other items where the authenticity of the software is critical could indicate the authentcity of the software, while not
The question is FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
It simply requires that you provide the user with the ability to use/create a functional key which provides identical functionality.
That way you can't end up with a situation where, say, Microsoft, uses their market clout to make hardware manufacturers release 'secure' boxes which only boot from Microsoft keys, and then they release a Linux kernel signed by Microsoft.... Now you have the source code to the Microsoft Linux kernel, but no 'comodity' box that will boot your recompiled kernel because they all require Microsoft's key.
Now, Microsoft (and Linus) can keep their private key private -- they just have to provide you with a key (any key) that will boot your box ... and They just can't punish you for using your own kernel (as long as it provides identical functionality).
Re: (Score:2)
So another option would merely be to not sue those who distribute works that link against your own work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman explains this in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism [gnu.org].
The freedom you're talking about is total freedom - which leads to fuedalism, which is not very free at all in practice. Free software is specifically about the freedom to help yourself and to collaborate with others of your choosing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is total garbage, and can very easily be shown to be total garbage merely by pointing to those projects which *do* use MIT/BSD licenses and which work fine organisationally. Yes, forks happen, but forks happen with GPLed code too.
I've said this to a lot of the pro-FSF lemmings that I've seen on this site, and I'm going to say it to you too...Try using your own brain for a change, rat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)