RSSTorvalds Says No GPLv3 For Linux
By Ed Oswald | Published January 26, 2006, 1:40 PM
One of the General Public License's biggest supporters will not be converted to version 3 out of objections over its position on digital rights management. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux is the first to take issue with the first revision of the GPL in a decade and a half.
"I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code," he wrote on the Linux Kernel mailing list Wednesday evening.
At issue for Torvalds is the provision within GPLv3 that opposes digital rights management and would apparently open up parts of the kernel to copying. He says that GPLv2 currently prevents this, but GPLv3 would not.
"The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licensable under v3, but not the kernel in general," he argued. "I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available."
The first draft of the revision has been released to the public, and the Free Software Foundation is inviting comment from the software community at large. A second draft of the license is expected in the summer, with a final draft set for fall. The final version of GPLv3 will be released no later than spring of 2007.
Some issues to be undertaken by the new version of the license include protection from companies who attempt to sue GPL developers over patent issues, GPL software use on DRM-capable devices, and modifications to policies surrounding how GPL licensed software can be used on the Internet.
"The guiding principle for developing the GPL is to defend the freedom of all users," Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman has said.
Everyone's looking at the bushes and trees, nobody sees the forest anymore. If you try to apply the opensource licensing criteria to other objects of our world (cars, houses, hospitals, jet airliners, restaurants, etc) it falls apart. There seems to be two views in conflict: one seeing the world as nobody having any right to "hide" or protect anything at all, give it all way, along with how it's made and the ingredients. The other sees some form of personal ownership rights with the ability to protect or hide at least portions of their efforts which are offered to others. This is shaping up more and more like religious argument. Who cares. I'm too busy compiling drivers and kernels to care at all about who argues about ownership. My systems have to run or I'm out of business. Let the lawyers argue the stupid crap.
Score: 0
|I didn't really understand this :( Sorry
Does anyone have a link to the draft?
Score: 0
|I read Linus's post in the Kernel mailing list archives but I can't find anything he said that relates to the DRM provisions of the GPL v3. He never really gives a full reasoning, just a small reason.
Quotation from lkml.org:
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
End of quotation from Linus
You can read the whole post here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
Rearden
edited to add link to post.
Score: 0
|I applaud Mr Torvald but the forces of evil now own linux and they are going to make sure that linux allows them to keep users in line and under their thumbs. Linus should look at creating a new OS that prevent these intrusions altogether.
Score: 0
|I'm liking Mr Torvalds less and less these days
Score: 0
|I'm not a fan. He can't just change the licensing of existing code unless he got the approval from everyone that's checked code in. The people that wrote code for Linux own the copyrights, I'm not a Linus fan for other reasons (like having a system where you must compile drivers for specific kernels, changing enough kernel code between minor bug fix releases to break drivers after they just started working etc.)
Score: 0
|User deleted comment
Score: 0
|It was also based, apparently, on a misunderstanding of the section related to private keys. It is my understanding that people are *only* required to provide them if the keys themselves are required to compile and run the code. (i.e., to maintain compliance with GPL...)
It's interesting that he's stating this before even the final revision, though..which leads some folks to think he and the FSF might be having issues.
Hopefully this will clear up with better understanding on his part and perhaps a slight re-wording (just the words, not the meaning) in that section of the doc.
[edited for severel glaring speelign erorrs.]
Score: 0
|"[edited for severel glaring speelign erorrs.]"
*chuckles* Sorry PC_Tool, I just couldn't help pointing that out :P
Anyway, from what I understand, Linux Kernal is technicly owned by Linus, so it's his choice what to do with the kernal code... Althrough, this whole submitting thing kinda confuses me as to who owns the code now...
Anyway, I don't support GPLv3 either. :S I've never really been a fan of GPL at all, as it seems to defeat the word "rights"
Score: 0
|