| Torvalds hasn't ruled out GPL 3 for Linux |
Feb. 07, 2006
Linus Torvalds could see using the proposed GPL 3 license for Linux, but he thinks it would be very hard to do in practice and he still has concerns about the Complete Corresponding Source Code section.
Not long after the first draft of the GPL 3 appeared, Torvalds, Linux's founder, objected to GPL 3 on the Linux Kernel Mailing List: "The Linux kernel has always been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever been valid." Torvalds concluded his note with the statement that "Conversion isn't going to happen."
That wasn't the end of the matter.
Richard M. Stallman, the GPL's primary author and founder of the FSF (Free Software Foundation), explained that he didn't understand Torvalds' objection to the GPL 3, but that, in any case, "The Linux developers can decide whether to allow use of Linux under GPL version 3. This won't directly affect other parts of the system."
However, the Linux kernel developers aren't all following Torvalds's lead on this matter, so the debate has continued on the LKML (Linux Kernel Mailing List) about whether the GPL 3 should cover the Linux kernel.
Lately, the debate has appeared to turn on the GPL 3's handling of DRM (Digital Rights Management).
Torvalds feels that DRM doesn't really belong in the GPL.
"I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than in software licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any content-protection schemes," wrote Torvalds.
In another message, Torvalds further explained his problems with the DRM requirements as, "It boils down to this: we wrote the software. That's the only part _I_ care about, and perhaps (at least to me) more importantly, because it's the only part we created, it's the only part that I feel we have a moral right to control."
In short, "I'm not arguing against the GPLv3. I'm arguing that the GPLv3 is wrong for _me_, and it's not the license I ever chose."
On a broader scale, Torvalds also doesn't care for what he sees as the GPL 3's "crusading license" qualities.
"I think that one of the main reasons Linux has been successful is that I don't think that the Linux community really is into crusading (some small parts of it are, but it's not the main reason). I think Linux has made the GPL more 'socially acceptable,' by being a hell of a lot less religious about it than the FSF was."
To me," Torvalds continued, "the point of the GPL is not the 'convert the infidels' logic, but something totally different: 'quid pro quo.'"
"I give out source code -- you can use it if you reciprocate."
"In other words, to me, the GPL 'give back source' is an issue of fairness. I don't ask for anything more than I give. I ask for source code and the ability to incorporate your changes back into _my_ use, but I don't want to limit _your_ use in any way," Torvalds added.
Despite all of his objections though, in an exclusive interview with Linux-Watch, Torvalds said that he hasn't ruled out using GPL 3 for the kernel.
It's "quite possible," said Torvalds that the GPL 3 could be used, "but on the other hand, there's a purely practical problem with any change of license when you have tens of major copyright holders and hundreds of people who have written some part and thousands who have submitted one-liners and small fixes.
There are, after all, benefits to putting the kernel under the GPL 3, Torvalds said.
"There would be advantages to being able to update the license: uniformity of licensing, for one. Linux is one of the few GPL projects that have had that 'v2 only' restriction, exactly because Linux is one of the few bigger projects that isn't actually a FSF project despite the license."
"So it's a balance between practical concerns and a wish to conform," Torvalds continued. "To some degree the current GPLv3 draft is nice just because it's not an issue we even have to face."
The actual GPL 3 license is still at least months of revision away from being approved.
So, why all this heated debate now?
"I end up having to be fairly vocal about it, just because I have to explain to people -- most of whom hate DRM -- why the key-signing clauses are problematic, and why we don't even want to entertain upgrading the license as it stands now."
However, it's not the GPL 3's DRM section per se that concerns Torvalds.
"Just to make it clear: It's not actually the new section 3 ('3. Digital Restrictions Management.') That I object to, like some people seem to think. That section I don't even worry too much about. The part of the GPLv3 that I'm most worried about is the new parts to section 1."
The specific section that Torvalds has trouble with reads:
"Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. ..."
According to Torvalds, this "is the one that seems to disallow digitally signed binaries (or rather: you can sign the binaries any way you want, but you have to make your private keys available)."
If this section is removed, then Torvalds believes that, while practically speaking it may be difficult to bring Linux under GPL 3 due to the sheer number of copyright owners, the kernel might yet be moved to the new GPL.
In short, the debate over Linux and GPL 3 is far from over.
--Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Do you have comments on this story?
Talkback here
NOTE: Please post your comments regarding our articles using the above link. Be sure to use this article's title as the "Subject" in your posts. Before you create a new thread, please check to see if a discussion thread is already running on the article you plan to comment on. Thanks!
(Click here for further information)
|
|
|
7 Advantages of D2D Backup
For decades, tape has been the backup medium of choice. But, now, disk-to-disk (D2D) backup is gaining in favor. Learn why you should make the move in this whitepaper.
4 Legal Reasons to Control Internet Access
The Internet is obviously a valuable resource for many organizations. However, many are exposed to legal liability concerns because they fail to control Internet access. Learn if you're safe in this white paper.
Rapidly Resolve J2EE Application Problems
Whether you are in the process of building J2EE applications or have J2EE applications already running in production, you must ensure that they deliver the expected ROI. Learn how in this white paper.
Load Testing 2.0 for Web 2.0
There are many unknowns in stress testing Web 2.0 applications. Find out how to test the performance of Web 2.0 in this white paper.
Build Better Games Online
For the game infrastructure providers, life is complex. Making money from games has become more complicated. Why? Find out in this white paper.
Building a Virtual Infrastructure from Servers to Storage
This white paper discusses the virtual storage solutions that reduce cost, increase storage utilization, and address the challenges of backing up and restoring Server environments.
Gaining Faster Wireless Connections with WiMAX
Welcome to what is quickly becoming the hyperconnected world where anything that would benefit from being connected to the network will be connected. Learn more in this white paper.
Is Your Desktop a Security Threat?
The new wave of sophisticated crimeware not only targets specific companies, but also targets desktops and laptops as backdoor entryways into those business’ operations and resources. Learn how to stay safe in this white paper.
Increasing SAN Reliability by 100 Percent
Storage area networks (SAN) are a strong part of storage plans. Learn how to increase your reliability and uptime by 100 percent in this case study.
|
|
|
|
|
news feed