thelinuxlink.net

This is becoming a very hot topic. I must admit I'm not a subject matter expert so I'll post links regarding the changes and arguements for and against it:

GPLv3 web page

Linus comes out against GPLv3
Stallman says he doesn't want to fight with Linus regarding GPLv3
Linus clarifies his position
Kernel developers oppose GPLv3
Rebuttal to Linux kernel developer stance

I'm sure we'll have a show (or two) on this in the future. This is very important stuff.

I'm all for the GPLv3, because DRM and software patents are just evil. Plus despite what the kernel hackers are saying, I also think some of the wording of the GPL needs to be updated to this day in age, so that it just can't be misunderstood, by even the sneakiest lawyers at Apple or Microsoft.

I do not agree with RMS on everything that he says, but I agree with him on a lot (Proprietary software is bad for society in the end, DRM and software patents are evil). Likewise I agree with Theo de Raadt on a lot of stuff (Such as "binary blobs" being a security threat), but his tone is sometimes quite harash.

Also I agree with Linus on a few technical things.

Does a person have to be for or against? I mean, just because v3 is out it doesn't mean it has to be used, does it?

If a developer wants to use v2 then he/she should be able to do so. Having a v3 with DRM stated in it just gives the Open Source community more to choose from, doesn't it?

Judland wrote:Does a person have to be for or against? I mean, just because v3 is out it doesn't mean it has to be used, does it?

If a developer wants to use v2 then he/she should be able to do so. Having a v3 with DRM stated in it just gives the Open Source community more to choose from, doesn't it?

true but it is the users that make up the open source community so sharing your oppinions on it can change how it shapes out. If all the users say they hate GPLv3 then chances are it will never take off but if it is the opposite then it will definately be as popular as GPLv2 is now.

Another interview with Linus and his views on the GPL.

Right or wrong, I cannot be sure of. But, I do know that Linus certainly seems to approach issues in a much calmer fashion than RMS or ER seem to do.

FSF clarifies some stuff in the GPLv3: http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification

I tend to side with Linus on such issues. Sure, I hate the Digital Restriction Madness from things like iTunes, but I simply choose not to buy anything with DRM on it if I can help it. I suppose DVDs do have DRM with Macrovision, but I hardly buy DVDs anymore.

I don't see any of this getting resolved between the FSF and the kernel maintainers, since they seem to have very different goals, and no amount of revision is going to change that.

I think Linus has a good point in that one of the strengths of the GPLv2 is the simplicity of its meaning. The anti-DRM bit of the GPLv3 seems unnecessary. As long as they show you the code, that's more important than the access to their hardware. Of course, I won't be buying any such hardware, and I won't be buying any of the "Trusted (Treacherous) Computing" crap either, but I do think they should be free to do what they want with it, as long as they show everyone the code.

The patent part of the GPLv3 makes sense to me. I'm not sure why the kernel maintainers would be against that, unless they--or I--have misunderstood it's meaning. But with the patent system in the US being as screwed up as it is, it just seems like you're taking proper precautions to prevent being sued by some jerk. If the patent system could be reformed, then even that part would be unnecessary. Maybe the Mutually Assured Destruction web of patents everywhere is enough to prevent silly litigation, but I wouldn't be so sure. Tough to say on that one.

Would companies start turning their back on linux because of something like an anti-DRM clause? I'd hate to see them just go to BSD and be more like Apple. I'd just let them have their DRM as long as they contribute their code back.

Vogateer wrote:The anti-DRM bit of the GPLv3 seems unnecessary. As long as they show you the code, that's more important than the access to their hardware. Of course, I won't be buying any such hardware, and I won't be buying any of the "Trusted (Treacherous) Computing" crap either, but I do think they should be free to do what they want with it, as long as they show everyone the code.

Except for the fact that you've essentially been robbed of freedom 0 that the GPL gives you, plus you can't do shit with the sourcecode, because you can't change the kernel running in the machine.
Just showing people the code, but now allowing people to use it for anything on their hardware I think is very unfair if someone profits from free software, I have no problem with people selling free software, I fully support Novell with SLED 10, but I have a problem with people using stuff like DRM as a workaround for stuff the GPL normally would allow.

Vogateer wrote:Would companies start turning their back on linux because of something like an anti-DRM clause?I'd hate to see them just go to BSD and be more like Apple. I'd just let them have their DRM as long as they contribute their code back.

Why would they do that? I doubt IBM uses DRM/TPM in their servers to force their customers to run a specific version of Linux or AIX.
A such DRM clause would hit people like TiVo, but for guys like Novell, IBM and others, it just means that they have new weapons against software patents.

Don't get be wrong I love BSD (OpenBSD is my favorite) they are great OSes, but I think the GPL adds something special to Linux, this blog post should explain what I mean: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd

Tsuroerusu wrote:

Vogateer wrote:The anti-DRM bit of the GPLv3 seems unnecessary. As long as they show you the code, that's more important than the access to their hardware. Of course, I won't be buying any such hardware, and I won't be buying any of the "Trusted (Treacherous) Computing" crap either, but I do think they should be free to do what they want with it, as long as they show everyone the code.

Except for the fact that you've essentially been robbed of freedom 0 that the GPL gives you, plus you can't do shat with the sourcecode, because you can't change the kernel running in the machine.
Just showing people the code, but now allowing people to use it for anything on their hardware I think is very unfair if someone profits from free software, I have no problem with people selling free software, I fully support Novell with SLED 10, but I have a problem with people using stuff like DRM as a workaround for stuff the GPL normally would allow.

Then don't buy the hardware. I hate Apple and I would never buy one of their products but that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't exist.

I think the problem is Linus choose the GPL because it is the best way to develop the kernel, he by no means a free software zealot but this community came together because of people like RMS and now they are attacking him and the other people that don't believe what they believe.

One thing that the DRM concerns me is the embedded market since Linux is really making inroads here but if we take away their right to say what can't go on then they will be turned away from it. I say if a hardware manufacturers business practices require DRM let them have it, at least they are using Linux.

CptnObvious999 wrote:Then don't buy the hardware. I hate Apple and I would never buy one of their products but that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't exist.

I'm starting to find that argument very very lame, because it all comes down to one of your four essential freedoms being taken away, and I think that is a spiritual (Not in terms of the current license's wording) violation of the GPL.
Also, did I ever say that Apple should be allowed to exists? No I did not, so why are you even bringing that up?

CptnObvious999 wrote:I think the problem is Linus choose the GPL because it is the best way to develop the kernel, he by no means a free software zealot but this community came together because of people like RMS and now they are attacking him and the other people that don't believe what they believe.

One thing that annoys me about this statement of yours is that you label everyone, who just believes in the values of free software, as a zealot. I really like christmas I think it's a nice tradition of giving each other presents and having a good time, I guess I'm a zealot!!!

I don't quite get your idea about somebody being attacked. Who is attacking who, the FSF is just updating the GPL, what is so bad about that? Who are they attacking?

CptnObvious999 wrote:One thing that the DRM concerns me is the embedded market since Linux is really making inroads here but if we take away their right to say what can't go on then they will be turned away from it. I say if a hardware manufacturers business practices require DRM let them have it, at least they are using Linux.

Well if they can use hardware vendor lock-in methods to not allow users' own kernels to run, what is the point of Linux being open source in the first place? If you wanna come down to practical terms, let's say you were a hacker messing with your phone and found out that it actually spied on you in some fashion, then you couldn't take it out, sure you could get another phone, but why should YOU the owner of a damn piece of technology be locked out of changing what is yours?
Also, Linksys had tremendious success with that WRT54G because it was hackable, and now they have a special model just for Linux guys.
One of the powers of open source is that you don't risk vendor lock-in, but with DRM measures being used to make sure that ONE specific kernel is being used, you are essentially locked into using firmware from that one vendor, sure you could go buy another phone, but I don't wanna pay like 250 bucks for another phone once I've already done it once!!!

Tsuroerusu wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:Then don't buy the hardware. I hate Apple and I would never buy one of their products but that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't exist.

I'm starting to find that argument very very lame, because it all comes down to one of your four essential freedoms being taken away, and I think that is a spiritual (Not in terms of the current license's wording) violation of the GPL.
Also, did I ever say that Apple should be allowed to exists? No I did not, so why are you even bringing that up?

It's called an example. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should disappear.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:I think the problem is Linus choose the GPL because it is the best way to develop the kernel, he by no means a free software zealot but this community came together because of people like RMS and now they are attacking him and the other people that don't believe what they believe.

One thing that annoys me about this statement of yours is that you label everyone, who just believes in the values of free software, as a zealot. I really like christmas I think it's a nice tradition of giving each other presents and having a good time, I guess I'm a zealot!!!

I don't quite get your idea about somebody being attacked. Who is attacking who, the FSF is just updating the GPL, what is so bad about that? Who are they attacking?

Maybe you have been spending too much time on the other side of the fence but he is always being attacked for doing what he (and a bunch of the developers) feel is best for the kernel. I'd hate to see how much hate mail is sent to his inbox, it can't be good for kernel development. I am not saying anyone who believes in free software is a zealot, hell I believe in it, but just those people who think all proprietary software is evil and should be banned and they attack anyone who has a different oppinion.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:One thing that the DRM concerns me is the embedded market since Linux is really making inroads here but if we take away their right to say what can't go on then they will be turned away from it. I say if a hardware manufacturers business practices require DRM let them have it, at least they are using Linux.

Well if they can use hardware vendor lock-in methods to not allow users' own kernels to run, what is the point of Linux being open source in the first place? If you wanna come down to practical terms, let's say you were a hacker messing with your phone and found out that it actually spied on you in some fashion, then you couldn't take it out, sure you could get another phone, but why should YOU the owner of a damn piece of technology be locked out of changing what is yours?
Also, Linksys had tremendious success with that WRT54G because it was hackable, and now they have a special model just for Linux guys.
One of the powers of open source is that you don't risk vendor lock-in, but with DRM measures being used to make sure that ONE specific kernel is being used, you are essentially locked into using firmware from that one vendor, sure you could go buy another phone, but I don't wanna pay like 250 bucks for another phone once I've already done it once!!

You would think if a company were smart enough to get you to buy a phone and spy on you and the kernel was under the GPLv3 then they would simply be able to make the OS from scratch... in either case the power of the press would be able to inform others and the company would loose sales dramatically. I fully support Linksys and own a WRT54G myself. People/Companies will always be able to do evil things and that's just how it is but there are lots of legitimate uses for DRM. Just because you can kill someone with a knife does that mean they should be banned? (I know that's a more extreme example but it gets the point across)

CptnObvious999 wrote:Maybe you have been spending too much time on the other side of the fence but he is always being attacked for doing what he (and a bunch of the developers) feel is best for the kernel. I'd hate to see how much hate mail is sent to his inbox, it can't be good for kernel development. I am not saying anyone who believes in free software is a zealot, hell I believe in it, but just those people who think all proprietary software is evil and should be banned and they attack anyone who has a different oppinion.

You make it sound like RMS sends Linus a 10000 mails everyday saying that he's an idiotic fool or something, I seriously doubt Richard does that.
A lot of people flame Linus over technical things, and that's not specific to Linux at all, heck it was what caused Matt Dillon to fork FreeBSD and create DragonFly-BSD (Theo de Raadt and OpenBSD is a different story as far as I know, as it wasn't because of technical reasons, but I don't know for sure).

Also, just because you believe all proprietary software is bad, does not necessarily make you into a zealot, but that's my opinion, feel free to do your own.

CptnObvious999 wrote:You would think if a company were smart enough to get you to buy a phone and spy on you and the kernel was under the GPLv3 then they would simply be able to make the OS from scratch... in either case the power of the press would be able to inform others and the company would loose sales dramatically.

Well, if a company is smart, and sneaky, they take the Linux kernel sources, add some spyware to it, release their modified sources without the spyware, and since the shipping kernel is signed, there's no really easy way to prove that the kernel actually does something that it is not supposed to do if you look at the sources.

CptnObvious999 wrote:People/Companies will always be able to do evil things and that's just how it is but there are lots of legitimate uses for DRM.

And those are?

CptnObvious999 wrote:Just because you can kill someone with a knife does that mean they should be banned? (I know that's a more extreme example but it gets the point across)

Nope, it shows how little you actually know of the exact terms of the GPLv3!!!
It does not say "DRM is not allowed", it just makes the point of "digital restrictions management" (I love this term) completely useless.
The vendors are free to use key signing to verify that their version of some GPLv3ed software is the one being run by the user, but they have to give the user their private key, so that the user can sign his own binaries to run on the device.
So sure, you can make a mobile phone and use DRM to make sure your kernel is being run, but you have to give the user your key so he can authenticate his own version.

Hmmm... well, all of these issues are moot if developers decide not to use the GPLv3.

As my buddy, Ash, had said before: "Good... Bad... I'm the one with the gun!"

So, the GPLv3 can be 100% perfect and justified. But if no one decides to use it, then it really doesn't matter.

Obviously, with the debates that are surrounding the GPL, many developers and companies are sure to stick with v2 just because it already works for them and are not comfortable switching.

Judland wrote:Hmmm... well, all of these issues are moot if developers decide not to use the GPLv3.

As my buddy, Ash, had said before: "Good... Bad... I'm the one with the gun!"

So, the GPLv3 can be 100% perfect and justified. But if no one decides to use it, then it really doesn't matter.

Why are we limiting the potential use of GPLv3 to just the kernel? There's a whole wold out there that could use it!
KDE could, GNOME could .....

Frankly I think it's be a lot more interesting to see KDE or GNOME use GPLv3.

Tsuroerusu wrote:You make it sound like RMS sends Linus a 10000 mails everyday saying that he's an idiotic fool or something, I seriously doubt Richard does that.
A lot of people flame Linus over technical things, and that's not specific to Linux at all, heck it was what caused Matt Dillon to fork FreeBSD and create DragonFly-BSD (Theo de Raadt and OpenBSD is a different story as far as I know, as it wasn't because of technical reasons, but I don't know for sure).

Also, just because you believe all proprietary software is bad, does not necessarily make you into a zealot, but that's my opinion, feel free to do your own.

No RMS wouldn't do it by himself. But from what I have read the free software zealots are always flaming him whether it be in his mailing list or the IRC or whatever. Also by zealot I mean something similar to fanboy, in the sense that they are not willing to compromise.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Well, if a company is smart, and sneaky, they take the Linux kernel sources, add some spyware to it, release their modified sources without the spyware, and since the shipping kernel is signed, there's no really easy way to prove that the kernel actually does something that it is not supposed to do if you look at the sources.

never underestimate the power of hackers. But like I said it is possible however unlikely, I would rather give the companies at least some freedom without having to change their business model.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:People/Companies will always be able to do evil things and that's just how it is but there are lots of legitimate uses for DRM.

And those are?

Say the Nintendo DS ran Linux, Nintendo would not like you loading your own firmware because 1) it could mean you could play pirated games and 2) it could be hacked to exploit other DS's and make them expensive bricks (this happened to the PSP IIRC although it wasn't sent through wifi).

Tsuroerusu wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:Just because you can kill someone with a knife does that mean they should be banned? (I know that's a more extreme example but it gets the point across)

Nope, it shows how little you actually know of the exact terms of the GPLv3!!!
It does not say "DRM is not allowed", it just makes the point of "digital restrictions management" (I love this term) completely useless.
The vendors are free to use key signing to verify that their version of some GPLv3ed software is the one being run by the user, but they have to give the user their private key, so that the user can sign his own binaries to run on the device.
So sure, you can make a mobile phone and use DRM to make sure your kernel is being run, but you have to give the user your key so he can authenticate his own version.

Doesn't that defeat the porpose of it? That's like encrypting your harddrive and then giving a malicious hacker the key/password.