HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU - Linus states he hates it. He does say that it's a fine license, and that the freedom to choose a license is important. The video is worth a watch if you want to understand what people who disagree with GPLv3 dislike about it.

Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration.

Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project.

So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever.

This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL.

This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code.

What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part.

https://jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/download/149/269 for an article and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general.

The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this. I think the SFC is pushing that but I don't follow closely enough.

What is remarkable is just how few developers have gotten on board with this group.

⬐ pabs3

It is pretty clear from the history, that GPLv2 always required the ability of users to update the installed software.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/

⬐ onphonenow

Um, that's the SFC version of GPLv2 intent. The actual folks using GPLv2 have a different view. This actually illustrates the issue that is going on with their attempt to claim GPL is not a copyright license (it has always been considered to be a copyright license) and their desire to change the intent. When you start having to twist and turn words and ideas this way you are in lawyer lala land.

"I give you source code, you give me your changes back; we’re even. … That’s my take on GPL version 2 and it’s that simple. … Version 3 extended that in ways that I personally am really uncomfortable with. Namely I give you source code, that means if you use that source code, you can’t use it on your device unless you follow my rules. And to me that’s a violation of everything version 2 stood for. And I understand why the FSF did it, because I know what the FSF wants, but to me it’s not the same license at all. So I was very upset, and made it very clear, and this was months before version 3 was actually published."

Please stop lying about what is "clear". The actual folks using these licenses disagree.

Here is Stallman on GPLv3

"There are several primary areas where version 3 is different from version 2. One is in regard to [T]ivoisation.

...

The Tivo includes some GPL-covered software. …[Y]ou can get the source code for that, as required by the GPL … and once you get the source code, you can modify it, and there are ways to install the modified software in your Tivo and if you do that, it won't run, period. Because, it does a check sum of the software and it verifies that it's a version from them and if it's your version, it won't run at all. So this is what we are forbidding, with the text we have written for GPL version three. It says that the source code they must give you includes whatever signature keys, or codes that are necessary to make your modified version run."

Who is Stallman you ask? The key guy behind GPLv2 (not the SFC BTW).

⬐ pabs3

Nothing in GPLv2 requires giving changes back, only giving changes forward to the downstream users is required, not back upstream to the original developers. Giving code to users is pretty pointless if they can't install and run it, which is why both GPLv2 and GPLv3 require this. It is the culture of working upstream that leads to code flowing back to the original developers (obviously this is a very important thing to do, but it isn't required by the license). So I think Linus might need to write a new license to achieve what he actually wants from GPLv2. Note that any such license would discriminate against some classes of people who can't or mustn't communicate externally (those on a desert island, those in a totalitarian regime etc), so probably wouldn't be classed as "open source".

I expect that Stallman simply did not know the details of what Tivo was doing, or was worried about what they might do in the future. Their actions didn't include preventing you from running modified GPLed software (although that is a scary thing that is definitely possible and currently likely present in modern devices). They only prevented you from running their proprietary software on top of modified GPLed software. Stallman wanted to prevent that scenario with GPLv3, but the wording that finally made it into GPLv3 still allows what Tivo was doing.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

This echoes of the kind of v3 fuckery Linus Torvalds complained about in his GPLv3 objection recorded at DebConf '14. [0]

I'm a long-time Free/Libre software user and advocate, but "if the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term." strikes me as a very strange thing for the license to include.

The copyright holder clearly has the authority to use whatever licensing terms they wish. If they added restrictions, this clause is in direct conflict with their intentions. Of course the court sided with the plaintiff. I don't understand what the FSF was trying to do here, it seems obviously underhanded like Torvalds touches upon in[0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU&t=147s

⬐ mr_toad

The GPL is a copyright work in and of itself and has its own license, which prohibits changing it.

Arguably adding extra clauses to the GPL is ‘changing it’, which violates the license to the license, and it implies that the plaintiff themselves have committed copyright violations by modifying and distributing the license. The FSF themselves would have cause to sue Neo4j.

⬐ pengaru

Section 7 of AGPLv3 [0] is entirely about augmenting the license, it's certainly not clearly prohibited. What this decision demonstrates is that section 7 is legally problematic as-is.

[0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

⬐ mr_toad

I’m referring to the very top of the GPL where it states that anyone may copy but not modify the license.

⬐ pengaru

This doesn't preclude additional restrictions (or permissions) in a supplemental license file. Section 7 practically encourages augmenting the license.

⬐ btdmaster

It explicitly says that:

  Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way.

Above requirements include:

  All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.

⬐ Jon_Lowtek

that part says "this license document" and that refers to the very text in the document that is claimed to be the AGPLv3.

It does not mean it is not allowed to license a work under another license that makes references to the AGPLv3 and includes it, only that the included document should not be changed.

⬐ goodpoint

It has nothing to do with it and Torvalds made very arguable claims.

⬐ pabs3

The intent of that part is explained by the Conservancy post linked from the OSI article.

⬐ didibus

> 73 [...] Here we are particularly concerned about the practice of program authors who purport to license their works under the GPL with an additional requirement that contradicts the terms of the GPL, such as a prohibition on commercial use. Such terms can make the program non-free, and thus contradict the basic purpose of the GNU GPL; but even when the conditions are not fundamentally unethical, adding them in this way invariably makes the rights and obligations of licensees uncertain.

It still doesn't sit right with me. Like the program authors should be allowed to license things however they want. A clause to contradict the program authors so as to not have them contradict the GPL is kind of strange to me.

I get the possibly "false advertisement" angle, like hey we're AGPL "caugh but not really". As a scheme to fool users into thinking they can use it freely. But still, I feel that be better to be on a user to read the additional terms and decide for themselves.

At least the court recognized you can't call a modified AGPL free and open source, so I guess the court established that and now this clause is no longer needed on the AGPL maybe?

⬐ mr_toad

> Like the program authors should be allowed to license things however they want.

There’s nothing to stop them coming up with their own license (like MongoDB did). They don’t have to plagiarise the GPL.

⬐ rectang

MongoDB's Server Side Public License is a derivative of the AGPL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License

> The Server Side Public License (SSPL) is a very strong copyleft source-available software license introduced by MongoDB Inc. in 2018. It is a modified version of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3.

⬐ ZiiS

Wow who would trust a license that is so clearly violating its own license.

Hilariously they provide a diff showing them stripping the copyright https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare...

⬐ pabs3

Elsewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the FSF FAQ allows derivative licenses, as long as they have different names.

⬐ ZiiS

Yes, they must have been granted another license to copy the license. Presumably this asked them to also remove attribution to avoid confusion.

⬐ vinceguidry

The license grant is in the FAQ. If it comes down to a legal fight the FAQ is usable in court.

⬐ CapsAdmin

The way I see the FSF is that they try to create a system where everyone's freedom to change and share between other people is maximized.

To be able to meet this goal we need some rules, like not being able to change software and share as closed source.

We don't want near absolute freedom like the MIT license. For the same reason we don't want to live in a country without any rules.

So this clause aligns perfectly with how I view GPL, maximizing people's freedom to modify and share the software.

⬐ inopinatus

The coercive behavior the FSF promulgates represents a narrow and openly ideological view of "freedom".

Thankfully, there are other ways to share open-source software, ones that don't restrict options or create burdensome obligations for users & contributors.

⬐ trelane

What "burdensome obligations" does the GPLv3 impose on each group? I'm especially keen to know what restrictions the GPL poses for users.

⬐ DangitBobby

I personally consider being forced to open-source derivitive software (or software that merely uses it) to be burdensome enough not to use GPL projects.

⬐ trelane

Yes, all software licenses impose restrictions.

The GPL's restrictions ensure that the end user maintains their freedom, at the expense of developer freedom to choose their own, more restrictive (to the end user but also potentially to other developers) license, if they want to incorporate the Free Software into their own software.

That is a tradeoff I'm cool with. I'm always a fan of ensuring end user freedom, including the right to repair.

I will also note that the GPL is explicitly not an end-user license. You can do whatever you want with it yourself. It only covers distribution.

⬐ DangitBobby

You asked "what burdensome obligations".

⬐ vinceguidry

Openly ideological is better than nakedly profit-seeking, which is mostly all the open source community offers.

⬐ inopinatus

Neither form a solid basis for any activity, I'd wager, but this is also a false dichotomy and a one-dimensional value judgement to boot.

⬐ inopinatus

It bears repeating, once again, that contrary to a frequent conceit of software engineers in particular (as evidenced by all the baffled hackers incorrecting each other in these threads), the law is not a programming language.

⬐ rbanffy

English is not a programming language, but it’d be immensely beneficial if laws were defined in some sort of language that didn’t allow any ambiguity or undefined behaviour

⬐ inopinatus

It would be horrifying, not beneficial, and what's more it'd be by definition incomplete, and therefore unsuitable for any but the most banal proceedings.

⬐ frankfrankfrank

I think something that sentiment misses is that “it is not a programming language” because of vested interests intentionally corrupt the law code, especially over time.

For example; the US Constitution is a relatively clean OS. First law/loop should check for whether any particular issue of consideration is explicitly delegated to the United States Government (10th amendment), if not, then it is exited to states. The problem here is that the OS has been so corrupted by the vested interests that they’ve tried using the federal OS for everything under the sun and it’s corrupting and clearly breaking by making it do things it not only was never intended to, but the makers of the best OS in human history explicitly warned never to do any of the things that have been done and the documentation very clearly explains why not to do them because it will destroy the whole system that everything relies on that everyone takes for granted.

⬐ inopinatus

Alas, I must heartily disagree. Law has never been a programming language and oh-my-lord thank fuck for that, because it would be an inhuman unjust catastrophe that we'd have to throw away and replace with something else.

With regards specifically to that US system; not being an American, I am not infested with the exceptionalism of the flag-saluters, and from the outside looking in the US constitution (especially with the Bill of Rights) looks like it was inevitably going to spawn the vast, sprawling shitshow that is the US code today. The fundamental difference being the positive construction of freedoms, which thereby ensured any right not strictly guaranteed is (irrespective of rightly or wrongly) perceived as fair game by just about every other entity jostling for position, who then spend inordinate amounts of energy whittling away at them.

All humans, other than a few ascetic hermits, have vested interests, so it's essential that any system of laws assumes this rather than trying to push an avalanche back uphill whilst complaining about all the snow.

⬐ cookiecaper

Ethereum's history clearly demonstrates the folly of "code as law". How many hard forks have they had by now?

⬐ rosndo

Ethereum isn’t “ready”, so obviously they need to fairly regularly perform hard forks in order to implement new features.

But I suppose you aren’t actually talking about that, but are referring to hard forks to roll back smart contract hacks. If so, it’s only happened once. In 2016. (And never gonna happen again)

https://ethereum.org/en/history/

⬐ legalcorrection

Yes this is basic contract law stuff. The OSI claiming this is wrong casts into doubt their basic competence as lawyers.

⬐ jraph

> This echoes of the kind of v3 fuckery Linus Torvalds complained about in his GPLv3 objection recorded at DebConf '14.

I feel like this is another topic. What Linus is criticizing in the part you cite is the "or later" mechanism, where as a licensee you can take some program licensed under "License version N or later" and release a modification under "version N+1 only", preventing the original authors to take back the modifications. I understand (and sympathize with) the intent of the "or later" mechanism, and why Linus does not like it (and agree with him). He also thinks the FSF wrongly took advantage of the "or later" clause by releasing a new version of the GPL that is not in the same spirit and he thinks that this is sneaky. One can agree or not.

This "or later" mechanism seems like it would hold in court, contrary to the discussed clause (deemed invalid here) that prevents an author from adding a restrictive clause next to the base license. Hindsight is 20/20, but it does seem like the authors of the AGPL could have anticipated this court decision [that author have all the rights to impose all further restrictions they want withing copyright laws and license authors cannot do anything about it] and don't put this clause, or just clearly write that licensees cannot add further restrictions to the original license.

I would not put the two points in the same bag.

⬐ rbanffy

> that author have all the rights to impose all further restrictions they want

But, then, why did they distribute it under a license that directly conflicts with that? The authors have sent two conflicting messages: that you can remove additional restrictions and that you are bound by them. How is the user supposed to act when given permission by the authors to do something the authors prohibit?

⬐ jraph

I'm not disagreeing with you, as an author I would not have risked something like this, but let me try:

- maybe the authors wanted the "AGPLv3 look it's open source!" label

- maybe the authors liked the restrictions that come with AGPLv3 (if you use a modified version on a server, we want the modified source code "back")

- maybe the authors wanted to built upon a license they perceive as strong and solid

- maybe the authors haven't thoroughly checked the AGPLv3 and weren't aware of this particular clause, or actually decided they could add limitations anyway

- writing a license is hard so maybe they didn't want to roll their own

I personally think the Commons Clause license is a bad thing with a bad name, and is only going to wreck havoc and muddy the waters. Widespread open source / free software licenses are complete, self-contained work and internally coherent, adding stuff on top of them is only going to be fragile.

⬐ rbanffy

> - maybe the authors liked the restrictions that come with AGPLv3 (if you use a modified version on a server, we want the modified source code "back")

It's not a restriction, and it's not about the upstream author: the modifications are available to every user (so they can be sure what is done with their data, as one example). As any GPL, this is about user rights, not developer rights.

> - maybe the authors haven't thoroughly checked the AGPLv3 and weren't aware of this particular clause, or actually decided they could add limitations anyway

I'm betting on this one. AGPL makes sense if you want to force anyone using your software to release their enhancements to their users. You, as the original author, retain the right to license it under a different license to your own users (so they don't get the exact source code to the services they are using remotely).

Picking a license is hard and should be done carefully, because the license you pick can have permanent effects on what you can do with your own software.

Larry Ellison, for instance, didn't realize he just couldn't kill MySQL just because he became its owner when he acquired Sun.

⬐ pengaru

> I feel like this is another topic. What Linus is criticizing in the part you cite is the "or later" mechanism

The "or later" mechanism was always there, this facet was old news, it's not the substance of what he's taking issue with in v3. He's just appreciative of having the presence of mind to fix his kernel at v2 and not leave the v2+ option, because v3 is terrible.

Listen to the entire clip I linked. He's complaining about tivoization restrictions, he's complaining about the dishonesty surrounding the freedom to ignore those restrictions. This is the same kind of v3 nonsense as TFA, is it not?

⬐ jraph

I'm familiar with this clip and listened to it several times. He doesn't like the GPLv3 for the reasons you give, and from what I understand, what he finds sneaky is not the GPLv3 itself (he recognizes that the GPLv3 can suit some people and is fine with this), but the fact that the GPLv3 has been written as a revision of the GPLv2 while it should have been an entirely new license (that would not interact with the "or later" mechanism and impact existing software with this or later clause). He says this in the sentence just before your citation.

From what I understand, he would have been fine with a revision to the GPLv2 that fixes some issues but does not change its spirit.

Now, that the GPLv3 is not in the same spirit than the GPLv2 is an opinion, and he does a good job of arguing his opinion on the matter.

> This is the same kind of v3 nonsense as TFA, is it not?

No, I don't think so.

edit: oh, ok, I understand what you mean. The nonsense you are speaking about is the FSF people telling Linus Torvalds that he can use GPLv3 without the tivoisation clause and still be compatible with the GPLv3, which indeed seems non nonsensical. The GPLv3 itself is not sneaky though, it's how it was sold to Linus IIUC.

⬐ ms4720

Having the Linux kernel as part of the GPL/FSF brand is critical marketing for the FSF. Linux is the thing that is the GPL in most people's minds in business and tech. They know that and are willing to break their own rules to keep it.

I like Linus's response for GPL v3. [0] GPL v2 was good. Version 3 is a little over.

In practice enterprises avoid using everything licensed under GPL v3 (e.g. Apple freezing Mac OS's Bash veraion), that blocks innovation cause good software usually backed by large amount of budget, especially those with GUI, like Windows, Android, Microsoft Office, Chrome etc.

[0]: https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU

Some more on Linus and his feelings on GPLv3 from 2014 - https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU

⬐ kmeisthax

I remember watching this years ago and getting really pissed at Linus. At the time I didn't actually get what he was getting at, and just assumed he was just standing in the way of Stallman grabbing half the computer industry by the balls/ovaries and demanding they never lock down a CPU ever again.

I rewatched this about a month ago and it has aged like a fine wine. As much as I personally like GPLv3, Linus was in the right to reject it. GPL has a no-further-restrictions clause for a reason, and the license upgrade mechanism should not be used to circumvent the intent of that clause just to make a stronger copyleft. In fact, I'm starting to sour on the concept of supra-GPL-strength copylefts in general, because going any stronger than GPLv3 requires interfering with freedom zero in some way.[0] This is supposed to be a software commons, after all.

[0] AGPL is designed to force users to retain what may be an antifeature to them. SSPL tries to force users to embed said antifeature into anything remotely related to the program. "Ethical Source" licenses try to enforce moral restrictions with economic rights.

Well, I don't think I agree with him and would licence GPL code with the "or later" clause, but he has a very reasonable and convincing argument against it.

See this video of him explaining his take on GPLv3 and the "or later" clause at Deb Conf if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

The above is correct - this would take more to cover here but I'd quickly suggest maybe watching something from active developers?

You need to realize that the basic principles were NOT asked for by the major users of GPLv2. When initially discussed way before v3 they were rejected. There was no scoping of need here, certainly not by major projects like Linux.

https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130

(start at beginning if you want more context).

Ubuntu went through this as well, and basically had to get the FSF to (privately) say that they wouldn't enforce the key release process for tivoization against Ubuntu. It was that or use the Microsoft shim.

It was just one sketchy / dicy deal after another. Crazy how wrong GPLv3 was in terms of a natural revision to v2 for developers. I doubt Linux has changed to GPLv3 or will personally, but we will see I guess. Good to see some GPLv2 options here that people can use in devices etc.

And the BSD's and MIT licenses took off as a result, GPL overall lost out as a result of the v3 mess in my view (as a GPLv2 fan that's a bummer).

Yes, the drafting part was "open" in the sense that lawyers got involved and the license got VERY very complex. If that's a win - go for it - most developers just passed on it.

⬐ jra_samba

Linus had no part in the drafting of GPLv3, so no I'm not surprised by that video at all.

I participated in the GPLv3 drafting, and your claim it was full of "one sketchy / dicy deal after another" is NOT correct.

You might not like how it turned out (and I myself have serious misgivings, mostly around the betrayal by the FSF in not using it for their own projects because they're frightened it will make them "unpopular") but it accurately reflected the wishes of the drafters at the time.

Nothing secret or sketchy about it at all.

⬐ whoknowswhat11

First - the GPLv3 was NOT drafted in an open process.

IF they had bothered to ask folks shipping GPLv2 code what they would want in a GPLv3 they would have gotten a much smaller scope. Maybe some patent improvements and some other cleanups.

The idea that they solicited developer community input around the GPLv3 in terms of what it should cover is a joke. It really is a lie basically. Yes, they solicited users and activists, but not the actual folks giving their labor away for free. So they tried to basically trick a bunch of folks by hitching onto the v2 or later standard language - using a license with very different terms - SO SKETCH!!

It really illustrates how immoral and unethical the drafters of v3 were and left a sour taste with a lot of folks.

Some folks had a heads up around what would be coming - Linus got an early look and went immediately to GPLv2 only to protect against this attempted hijacking.

----

Once they did get it out - now FAR longer and harder to read, lots of special cases etc, they'd created a real problem, it was hard to work with this thing.

They kept on lying about having to release or not release encrypting / signing keys.

Ubuntu refused to use a v3 bootloader until they did some kind of backroom deal with FSF where FSF, as author of license, did some private interpretation Ubuntu could rely on. Ubuntu wasted a metric ton of time on this, and until they got the secret signoff were not going to budge (ahh, again a sign they ignored major dev communities).

I could go on, but it's not worth re-hashing. v3 basically ended GPL as the standard OSS license, I think folks are sick enough of it that MIT / Apache etc are going to be the future. Even the idealists among us learned some important lessons in the process.

I think GPLv3 and especially AGPLv3 will be the home of things like contributor licensed software to one company - it's basically unusable but they can call it "open source" sort of like Microsoft shared source stuff and then license commercially by keeping copyright in a for-profit vs in a community of contributors. If they can find devs willing to contribute under that - more power to them. But that wasn't the early model under GPLv2.

So the drafters fractured the GPL copyleft landscape (bad), messed up the popularity of this type of license (bad), didn't have the integrity to do a GPLv3 in keeping with v2 (bad).

It's kind of incredible, there was this AMAZING license in v2, I mean, folks had really consolidated around it in a fair number of major areas and ways. I sometimes can't believe that got torched for MIT and Apache (which really are not copyleft though they are open source).

----

Anyways, having failed with v3, I'm expecting they will try to back fit v3 by saying v2 is really v3? Look for some very strong pushback on that.

⬐ jra_samba

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."

⬐ slownews45

Some quick thoughts here:

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Please don't post shallow dismissals

I've worked to provide some background / context around my comments. Instead of indicating I was misinformed perhaps, that Ubuntu perhaps never was concerned about GPLv3 in a bootloader, we get a pretty content free dismissal. If you have little to add, perhaps just let the comment thread end?

These types of content free responses do little to advance a discussion on a topic.

Many developers disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

Gives just one example of folks who are active in this space thought. GPLv3 is very different than v2.

Edited: Some quick stats as well:

Permissive licenses are on the rise. In 2012, 59% of components' licenses were copyleft and 41% permissive. In 2019, that has fully swung the other way with 67% of components having permissive licenses and 33% copyleft. Permissive licenses face few restrictions on how others can use components.

MIT was the most popular license in 2019 at 27%. The MIT license lets folks do almost anything they want with the code as long as they attribute it and don't hold you liable.

Apache 2.0 jumped over GPL 3.0 in 2017 to number two and it's still there with 23%. It gives you patent rights while allowing modifications and distribution of larger works under different terms and without source code.

- Techrepublic

⬐ gumby

I don’t understand the point you’re making. You asserted that that v3 is inconsistent with the historical intent of the gnu project; I argued that it was not, based in part on my involvement going back into the 90s.

Of course you can disagree with me, but the choice various developers might make is unrelated to that. It merely shows that various people don’t agree with the goals of the FSF. Which may be interesting but has nothing to do with the licence’s fidelity to the FSF’s objectives.

No, Torvalds is strongly in favour of the GPLv2. [0][1][2] He's not fond of the GPLv3 though, at least not in the context of kernels. [2][3]

[0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-rela...

[1] https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

[3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/torvalds-battle-with-gplv3/

⬐ pabs3

What Linus wants is apparently to have people contribute back to Linux mainline, but the GPLv2 license he chose doesn't even have that requirement. So any sharing that does happen is down to culture, not to the license. PS: the requirement to share upstream wouldn't be Free Software, since it would exclude dissidents, people on a desert island etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...

⬐ MaxBarraclough

> any sharing that does happen is down to culture, not to the license.

That's mistaken.

If you write Linux kernel code and release it, the GPLv2 obligates you to release your source. That is to say, you do not have the option of releasing only the binary. [0] You have the option of never releasing your work, and you can for instance run a cloud service powered by your modified Linux kernel without having to release your code. [0] (This is how the GPL licences differ from the AGPL licences. [1])

The Linux kernel has benefited enormously from this obligation to share. Torvalds certainly thinks so: [2]

> I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back

It's true that you aren't obligated to contact the Linux kernel maintainers and suggest they merge your changes, but I don't see that this would be desirable. As you say, such a requirement would be problematic.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm...

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedModsAGPL

[2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-rela...

⬐ pabs3

The GPL does not require to release the source publicly, only to the same people you distribute binaries to. This is not an obligation to share back to the project itself. Therefore the sharing back that does happen is down to culture not to the license.

⬐ MaxBarraclough

> The GPL does not require to release the source publicly, only to the same people you distribute binaries to.

You're emphasising the distinction between making GPL'ed source-code available to your customers specifically, and making it available publicly online. In practice there is little difference. Few companies bother hoping no customer will post the source publicly (which the customers are permitted to do under the GPL).

In practical terms the decision is between not releasing, or releasing to the public including the source-code. In a world where the Internet didn't make distribution of software trivially easy, things might be different.

Of course, there are some notable exceptions, the most prominent being nVidia's probably-non-compliant proprietary graphics driver. A fair bit has been written about that.

> Therefore the sharing back that does happen is down to culture not to the license.

No, Torvalds has it right.

Proprietary freeware kernel modules are forbidden outright, as you are not permitted to publicly release the binary without also releasing the source. As I described, 'contained' distribution of source-code isn't a practical option.

The decision of what to merge into the mainline kernel is of course up to the kernel developers. There's no other way it could be.

There has been relatively high levels of support for normal / standard GPLv2 enforcement.

That said, the FSF and Conservancy like to pick more edge cases and go to absolute war on them. That doesn't generate as much support it is true and a lot of parts of the GPLv3 push also rubbed folks the wrong way.

"Linus says says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

is but one of many many examples here.

⬐ michaelmrose

Linus isn't much qualified on any other topic that software development. For example what he describes as his "take" on GPL v2 and its purpose is at odds with what the people that actually wrote it have written and even a basic reading of the text.

What he is mistating is he liked the fact that you could for practical purposes ignore much of the idealogy that a) he has never cared for and b) has always clearly underpinned both v2 and v3 of the GPL license.

Pretending otherwise is only not a lie because charitably he doesn't know what he is talking about or isn't expressing himself very well.

If you want a useful opinion on law ask a lawyer not a programmer. Linus is not only unqualified he doesn't know he is unqualified.

⬐ pabs3

Even relaxed "we only care about source release" GPLv2 enforcement is not desirable to Linus and other Linux developers.

⬐ NavinF

And for good reason!

Linus and Greg KH's reasoning for avoiding lawsuits: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/...

⬐ cycomanic

Yes it's incredibly difficult for someone to understand something if their salary depends on not understanding it. It's important to note that Linux would likely not exist if PC makers had used the same lockdown methods as used today.

Moreover when GKH and Linus talk about how GPL enforcement has done nothing good, they conveniently leave out the success of WRT enforcement, which caused one of the biggest Linux offshoots, largely based on volunteer work.

Finally, the audacity of saying "let's talk about legal things without lawyers present" is such a typical software engineer thing, just imagine the reaction someone was proposing to talk about kernel programming without any kernel programmers present

⬐ AstralStorm

BSD as in the software distribution almost didn't get to exist thanks to a lawsuit, but once that was cleared it was out. It Linux didn't exist, it would have taken over the niche.

Linux itself is not that special - it mostly is a case of right place and right time.

⬐ pabs3

The principles used by FSF/Conservancy operate their copyleft compliance efforts under are eminently reasonable and make it clear that lawsuits are a last resort that are only used when the violator is being unreasonable and blatantly violating the licenses.

https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

⬐ pabs3

The focus of FSF and Conservancy is on freedoms; obtaining the code, reading the code, building the code, modifying the code, installing the modified code and running the modified code are essential freedoms and if they aren't possible for a person with the necessary skills and resources, then the license and the enforcement of the license are not achieving the goals of the Free Software and Open Source movements.

If anything, I would say that the amount of freedoms intended to be upheld by these licenses is not expansive enough, considering the SaaSS world that we live in now.

In https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU Linus talks about BSD licenses at 8:30 (well, somewhere around there).

Its a good watch for the philosophical background on which license Linux is under and Linus's feelings about the GPL v2 and v3.

No, he wouldn't have used the BSD license - it didn't match what he wanted for linux.

You can watch a few conference talks where folks really go to town on Linus for his bad behavior.

On GPLv3 lots of calls for Linus to stop supporting GPLv2

"How do we get you to stop..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

And the list goes on and on. That said, his decisions seem to have worked out amazingly well. At some point I can imagine getting tired at having to repeatedly defend your views.

⬐ _d7dt

>his decisions seem to have worked out amazingly well.

As someone who regularly deals with bugs and inconsistencies in Linux, I wouldn't say so. For me personally, I just want to be able to fix the issues, and would rather not spend the time bickering with someone who has some kind of personal vendetta about something that I don't know about. I try hard not to dump my baggage on other open source maintainers, I hope others can do the same.

⬐ marcodiego

Deepest differences between GPLv3 and v2 are:

* Antitivoization clause: it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required. This guarantees freedom 0 (freedom to use the software) will not be circumvented and discourages vendors from shipping hardware that requires signed software.

* Antipatent clause: The license is revoked from an attacker if patents are used to attack users of the software.

These clauses maybe desired in some cases. Probably, a sensible direction could be to add flags to the GPLv2 to particularly enable these clauses. Somewhat similar to how it is done with CC licenses which may have BY, SA, or NC flags.

⬐ st_goliath

Also an IMO important point: if a copyright holder notifies you of a violation, you have an explicit 30 day grace period to "cure" that.

The GPLv2 instead terminates your license, requiring a reinstatement by the copyright holders.

⬐ Blikkentrekker

The GPLv2 “death penalty” is most likely unenforceable.

The legal argument is that since the GPLv2 is a public offer that one can accept by complying with it's terms, regardless of the original holder's specific permissions, the offer is even extended to past violators, so all violators have to do to re-accept the offer is to simply come into terms with it again, but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated.

⬐ dec0dedab0de

but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated.

Try telling the NFL that you're only violating their copyright during for duration of the super bowl. If you stop committing a crime, it's not like it never happened. Sure, most copyright holders of GPL licensed code won't sue you if you make an honest effort, but the 30 day clause just makes that official.

⬐ Blikkentrekker

That has nothing to do with licence termination, however, which is an entirely separate part from violation.

⬐ dec0dedab0de

Once the license is terminated you are in violation.

⬐ Blikkentrekker

No, in reverse, once one violates, the licence is terminated.

That has nothing to do with copyright per sē, and is simply a provision of the GPL, and thus has nothing to do with the Superbowl.

The GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that.

⬐ dec0dedab0de

The GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that.

We might be arguing semantics here. I am trying to convey the idea that the rights holder can sue for damages after the duration of the violation, even if they can only sue for damages that took place during the violation. That is, once you are in compliance with the license you don't retroactively have a license for the time it was revoked.

⬐ Blikkentrekker

Yes, but that is not what the GPLv2 death penalty is.

The principle if true means that one can never obtain a new licence when coming in compliance except by gaining permission from every single rightsholder which for large projects can be thousands. — this is theoretically true by the letter of the GPLv2, but the common legal opinion is that this provision is not legally enforceable.

The GPLv3 fixed this unintentional problem, as the GPLv2 was never written with the idea of thousands of rightsholders in mind.

⬐ josephcsible

> it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required

It's a little bit more nuanced than this. It's okay to require signed code as long as the end user has control over which signing keys to trust (e.g., x86 Secure Boot, but not ARM Secure Boot). In particular, this means you don't have to choose between security and freedom - you can have both.

⬐ st_goliath

It appears to me that the complaints in the video seem to go more towards the problems of license compatibility (or lack of backwards compatibility) between GPLv2 vs GPLv3 creating tons of problems with outside contributions to the kernel if the typical "or later" clause was used.

Some of the other commenters here seem to stress the Tivoization clause, but it appears to me that that is not the real issue. Linus even says so, at one point when the guy asking the questions repeatedly tries to stress that point.

⬐ SeanLuke

I am not familiar with the Tivoization issue, but v3 solves one showstopper problem with v2: v2 has no real patent release. To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects.

Linux is chock full of potential patent release deathtraps: that it is still using v2 is kinda scary.

⬐ notaplumber

Because software patents should not be legal, and are not enforceable in many sane jurisdictions, e.g: Europe.

I'd much rather stick with "archaic" but understandable licenses like BSD, over verbose licenses that intertwine US Patent Law with Copyright law, such as Apache 2 or GPLv3.

⬐ atq2119

Apache 2 is a terrible license for another reason anyway: it requires modified versions to carry notice of the modification on every modified source file. This means that tons of people who fork Apache 2 projects on GitHub are in violation of the license without even being aware of it.

⬐ xahrepap

I like Linus's generalization of (in my words):

- If you like the idea of sharing code and want people to share code back. Use GPL

- If you like the idea of sharing code, and merely want credit for it. Use BSD.

Your point about patent is an import part of his generalization that is not addressed.

GPLv3 solves the first bucket WRT patents. Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue?

EDIT: formatting and clarifying words.

⬐ Ajedi32

I actually really like the idea of a license that forces changes to the licensed code to be made available to be merged back upstream, at least in theory. The issue I have with the GPL is that it doesn't, in my opinion, do a good enough job of distinguishing between "changes to the licensed code" and "changes to unrelated code which happens to be integrated with the licensed code". I would prefer not to impose restrictions on the latter, because in my mind that effectively restricts what people are allowed to DO with my code by making it harder for them to use it with code that's available under a different license.

For example, if I were writing some kind of calendar application which contained a date parsing module within it and someone wanted to copy some code out of that date parsing module and paste it into their own application, I'd be perfectly fine with that. If they later make improvements to that code they copied, I'd prefer it if they'd contribute those changes back, but I absolutely don't want to try to force them to make their entire application open-source, or if it's already open source, to force them to re-license it under my license.

I recognize that the line between "unrelated code" and "improvements to my code" can get really blurry, which is why right now I prefer to err on the side of freedom by using permissive licenses like the MIT, but I wouldn't mind using a copyleft license that took greater pains to ensure it isn't "viral" like the GPL.

⬐ None

None

⬐ smaddox

If you haven't already, you might take a look at the LGPL.

⬐ matheusmoreira

Linus is also against enforcing the GPLv2 against violators because it alienates companies and contributors.

Their preferred strategy apparently consists of using two properties of the Linux kernel as leverage: the massive scale of its development and the instability of its internal interfaces. Linux kernel hackers get about 20 patches every hour and that figure comes from a video I watched years ago. Those patches improve things all over the place and nobody cares about code that isn't in the kernel tree. As a result, out-of-tree code quickly becomes out of date and the companies must pay the constant maintenance costs or be left behind.

⬐ RcouF1uZ4gsC

I believe Apache solves the second bucket with respect to patents.

⬐ gnomewascool

> Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue?

Apache 2.0 License.

⬐ xxpor

The "default" license for Java libraries being Apache 2.0 shouldn't be overlooked as a reason for the success of Java in the corporate world IMO. It's a perfect license to make corp lawyers comfortable.

⬐ xahrepap

Good to know. Thanks!

⬐ ksec

And BSD + Patents

⬐ Benjamin_Dobell

I think this is a common misconception. The Apache 2.0 license isn't all that similar to simpler licenses BSD/MIT/X11.

Apache 2.0 has some clauses which (most people tend to ignore and which) make it somewhat incompatible with modern open-source fork and pull request workflows.

In particular 4.b)

> You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files;

For the most part, people just throw their name in the file, in an attempt to "meet" this requirement without massacring the file header/notice.

However, if the Apache 2 license is taken at face value, when you fork and modify a file, you have to mark it as such. Then when you submit back, the project (in adherence with the Apache 2.0 license) has to retain this notice. Technically the project may even then need to add their own notice to indicate they modified the file since you did.

Clearly, that's not tenable, so most (small) projects just offer leeway. Larger projects instead have contributor agreements (AOSP and alike).

⬐ frant-hartm

I would argue that git blame is prominent enough. And as long as you don't distribute sources in any other way than a git repo you are fine.

⬐ Benjamin_Dobell

Assuming this is true (hopefully it never comes down to it, but I'll leave that for the courts), then the simple act of hosting on Github, with its download source functionality, would make you in violation.

⬐ atq2119

You can argue all you want, ultimately it's for courts to decide, and in the meantime the Apache 2 license creates a ton of legal uncertainty for no good reason.

For example, GPL has language requiring you to make clear that you changed the software, but leaves open how you do it, and doesn't require you to mark individual files.

⬐ smaddox

I guess I assumed you only need to be clear about the modifications if you are not also releasing them as Apache 2.0. is that not the case?

If not, is there any other similar standard license with a patent clause that I could use?

⬐ est31

Yeah it's a bit troubling that such weird clauses exist in the Apache license, and that the Apache license has become this popular lately. The main motivator is that everyone else is doing it I think, and the patent license.

Large Apache licensed projects without contributor agreements exist (LLVM for example).

⬐ rockdoe

To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects.

Isn't BSD widely accepted to have an implicit patent license? e.g.: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335

⬐ SeanLuke

No, nor MIT/X11. There is debate as to whether its wording might provide some protection through accident of history, but that's not how the law should work: a proper license is unambiguous.

⬐ xxpor

In common law countries, it's nearly impossible to write a legal document that's completely unambiguous. Even if it's unambiguous at the time the document is written, the underlying law could change at any time. Of course that could happen in civil law countries too, but it'd be from a statute being changed.

⬐ SeanLuke

Whataboutism. There's a massive difference between "no license is 100% unambiguous" and "BSD is maximally ambiguous".

⬐ dathinab

Yes but:

- There is no legal viable way to upgrade to v3, even if the "or later" clause would be there it would have been a legal disaster.

- It's also makes it much more viable to upstream drivers in Linux

- Let's be honest the patent system is by now utter garbage failing the one fundamental thing it was invented for: Driving/Improving Innovation. The only reason it didn't fall on our head yet is because many companies simple don't enforce patents. Also you could argue it already fell on our head in some areas due to innovation having slowed to a crawl, while certain competitions (mostly in Asia) are not affected as they ignore patents. I mean sharing and cloning software (between companies!) is what enabled us to have massive innovations (through some maybe stupid) in software space. Non of this would have been possible with enforced software patents.

⬐ adamrezich

I wasn't familiar with "Tivoization" either but I found that there's a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

⬐ bombcar

The "medical devices" loophole in GPLv3 makes the whole thing kinda insane

http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq

Look at that table!

⬐ MauranKilom

I don't understand how this table relates to medical devices? Could you explain?

⬐ bombcar

The table is a second thing - Section 6 is the medical devices loophole; I was just amazed by seeing that (unrelated) table.

Certainly simple! /s

⬐ warmwaffles

I just looked up the history of it. Interesting characterization.

⬐ m463

This is basically why apple stopped shipping GPL software when GPL3 came along.

Apple takes away the ability to run the software, then sells it back to you.

⬐ dec0dedab0de

Tivoization is when a computer comes with GPL code, but refuses to run it if there have been any modifications to the code. Tivo used to ship GPL'd software, and provide the source, but they had some kind of lock that checked the authenticity of the code being run. So it defeated the entire purpose of the GPL, which is so the end users have control of their own computers.

⬐ quux

Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2.

From the preamble:

  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

This jives well with Linus's intention of "I give you software to do whatever you want with, and if you make improvements you have to give them back"

⬐ blihp

Of course it was, implicitly. Go back an read Stallman's writings from the time. It was all about giving end users control. The end users of the early GNU software were mostly programmers so providing them with source code was providing them with control.

⬐ matheusmoreira

> Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2.

It is the goal of Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Free software licenses are one of the means to that end.

Free software started in universities decades ago. The software was written for Unix computers, many years before things like trusted computing. The GPLv2 reflects this environment: it takes hardware freedom for granted and focuses entirely on software freedom. Tivoization was an unforeseen development.

⬐ tremon

Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2.

But it is. Let's quote another paragraph of the preamble too, shall we?

  if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.

This surely says, in spirit, that if you as manufacturer have the right to deploy this software on certain hardware, that the recipient must have the same rights?

Linus's intention of "I give you software to do whatever you want with, and if you make improvements you have to give them back"

This, on the other hand, is not a stated goal of GPLv2. Your obligation, as a software distributor, is only downstream (your recipients/customers), not upstream (your suppliers).

⬐ VWWHFSfQ

isnt this why they made gplv3 then

⬐ quux

It is. My point is that saying Tivoization went against "the entire purpose of the GPL" (which would include v2) isn't backed up by the text of v2 itself.

⬐ atq2119

It's very clearly backed up by the history of how the GPL came to be in the first place.

There was a printer driver that RMS wanted to change but couldn't. If the system he was working with had had code signing for printer drivers and refused to run with his modifications because of it, we'd have had the TiVo clause in the very first version of the GPL already.

⬐ klyrs

I agree. GPLv2 was about keeping the software free. The tivoization issue addresses a (relatively) newer issue, to protect full control over hardware and software. Which is, IMO, not within the scope of a software license -- it took many of us by surprise that the "or later" clause was used to change the fundamental meaning of the license in that manner.

Some of us were always suspicious before the change -- "what if RMS sells out and v(n+1) grants non-reciprocity to his employer" type of crap -- but we went with v2+ because it was popular at the time. I don't think I've seen "v3 or later", probably because we've been burned already.

⬐ cortesoft

Eh... it seems more like “the authors of GPLv2 didn’t even think of Tivoization when it was written”.... I think the assumption was that if you have access to the code and the rights to change it, that meant you could be in control of your software. They didn’t think of the possibility that hardware would restrict what could be run.

I don’t think it is that much of a stretch to say preventing people from running modified versions of the software went against the goals of GPLv2 to allow users the ability to “change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs”

Not being able to run the software you change certainly means you can’t use it.

⬐ dec0dedab0de

It wasn't an explicitly stated goal, but thats exactly what those freedoms were meant to do. Atleast in regards to the software being provided under the license. They just didn't foresee a future where computers would refuse to run a modified version of the code they came with. Remember, the impetus for GNU was a closed source printer driver that rms wanted to modify, and was not allowed to.

This jives well with Linus's intention of "I give you software to do whatever you want with, and if you make improvements you have to give them back"

Except the GPL does not require you give any improvements back. It only requires that you give the same freedoms to whoever you give the improved software to. That is, the end users. There are plenty of enterprise "appliances" that come with modified GPL code that is only given to the companies that pay for these computers. That is perfectly within the spirit of the gpl, because it's goal is to give the end users freedom.

edit:

What else would be the point of "that you can change the software" without having a means to run it?

⬐ quux

What else would be the point of "that you can change the software" without having a means to run it?

Porting the software to new hardware?

⬐ dTal

...which was of largely academic interest when it was DVRs, but is now a pants-on-fire emergency with the "advent" of Linux-powered pocket spy devices masquerading as telephones - with huge consequences for ordinary, non-nerd people.

The stakes for software freedom have never been higher.

⬐ bombcar

"or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 without that.

And we're seeing that the GPLv3 didn't "solve" the problems it was meant to solve and now we have multiplications of "open source" licenses designed to protect business models.

⬐ RcouF1uZ4gsC

> "or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 without that.

And it introduces a gigantic single point of failure with the FSF. If someone legally takes over the FSF, and publishes GPL 4 which is a BSD style license, then copyleft goes away for a lot of GPL software.

⬐ progval

There is even a precedent of the FSF doing this, without a takeover. The FSF published a new version (1.3) of the GFDL license specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its text (that was licensed as "GFDL version X or above") to a CreativeCommons license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Cre...

⬐ bombcar

The FSF being taken over in that way is actually quite likely, given long enough time frames. It'll be interesting to see.

⬐ st_goliath

While this is a scary, yet also somewhat possible scenario out there, the GPL license text itself goes to great extents to explain (in classic RMS speech style) the ideals of Free Software and the whole point of the license. It also says, that the FSF may publish modified versions of the license in the future which are "similar in spirit" to this one and alludes to the fact that the author of the software may have given you the "any later choice".

To the slight dismay of some in my immediate family, I chose to study CS instead of law, so IANAL, but in the scenario you describe, I would try to argue into the direction that the hypothetical GPLv4 without copyleft clause is very much not "similar in spirit" to the intent outlined in the older versions in great detail, and hence should not apply.

⬐ bombcar

The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it.

I'm frankly surprised that ANY lawyers signed off on the GPLv2 (as in, picking it for a company sponsored project) as the "any later version" and "similar in spirit" are quite open to interpretation.

And all we'd need to see in GPLv5 or v6 is some line like "nothing in this license shall be taken as being incompatible with the BSD/CDDL" to open a huge can of worms.

Honestly, if you want to do "or later" I'd instead just assign your code to the FSF to do with it what they will.

⬐ st_goliath

> The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it.

Of course, and it would be a real PITA, but I don't see how it would be that much different from a GPL violation law suit right now. If you publish your source code, even under GPLv3, there is nothing that really stops anybody else from taking it and violating the crap out of the terms and conditions.

In pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of, the copyright holders are the only ones who can sue for copyright infringement (setting aside the whole "is the GPL a contract?" debate for the moment[1][2], which would also open up suing for breach of contract in some juristicions).

You can slap any license constraints you like on your source code and publish it, but if you really don't have the resources to pursue legal action for violations to begin with, that already isn't worth anything and the software is effectively in the public domain.

[1] https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-con...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lic...

⬐ kelnos

To be fair, that text does not actually appear in the license; it appears in the suggested instructions for using the license (which you are free to ignore when licensing your project). In practice, though, most projects tend to use those suggestions as-is.

This distinction is actually important, because the GPL forbids adding more conditions on top of the license while still being GPL-compatible.

The FSF does agree[0] with you that code licensed "GPLv2-only" cannot be included in a GPLv3 project.

[0] See table at http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq

⬐ None

None

⬐ matheusmoreira

Honestly, the only way the GPLv3 could have succeeded was if everyone had been forced to use it. In order to succeed, it would have to literally become law.

People are always free to reinvent the entire free software ecosystem. They are also free to choose different licenses. I knew it was over when LLVM compilers started replacing GCC in a lot of systems.

⬐ chomp

Are you referring to AGPL? Or RSAL/SSPL?

⬐ bombcar

The second - in theory GPLv3 "solves" the Tivoization problem but the "cloud service" problem now exists - and honestly I think BOTH the GPLv3 and SSPL and such licenses are bandaids on an underlying problem - GPLv3 trying to solve a hardware licensing issue, and SSPL trying to solve a business model problem.

The other side-effect of all this license proliferation is that companies clearly "know" where they stand with them - and are scared to move to new ones, especially if they have "patent side effects" that the lawyers don't want to investigate or stick their neck out on.

Apple stopped with the GPLv2 and hasn't moved forward in anything GPLv3; sure you can argue they never contributed much but the license should be about source code freedom - and it has morphed to be so much more.

⬐ m463

Affero GPL is for cloud stuff.

> the license should be about source code freedom

no, it is about USER freedom.

You can USE gpl software for any purpose whatsoever.

Do anything you like with it. modify it, run it, it is yours.

It's just that when you redistribute it, you have to pass on that freedom.

I don't know why people in business freak out about this. They have money. Pay people to write software. If they want to redistribute software, just get MIT stuff, fork and close it, make modifications that restrict the use/redistribution, then sell it.

⬐ simion314

>but the license should be about source code freedom

This is not true, GPL is about "user freedom", repeat it 3 times, "USER" freedom. This is why it gates hate from some developers or entrepreneurs here, it removes the freedom of the developer to abuse the user or in recent cases companies to profit from community work and not give anything back or even harming the original project with FUD or unfair competition.

⬐ bombcar

The developer is a user; in fact the whole point of the GPLv2 is that it should be the case that users CAN be developers. GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software; it's analogous to the "software cannot be used for evil" or "this software cannot be used in tanks" clauses on other licenses.

And as Linus is arguing, it's perhaps a perfectly FINE license, but it is NOT the GPLv2 and it has different aims and desires: and he gives examples where if the kernel had the "and any other version" the GPLv3 could be used to do exactly what the GPLv2 is supposed to prevent - someone taking the code and modifying it and distributing it in a way so that he can't use the modifications.

⬐ dTal

>GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software

No it doesn't. You can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software, provided you don't distribute it. It's disingenuous to use the word "developer" to equate "person who edits their own software" with "person who distributes software to others".

Or if you disagree, can you articulate exactly what USER freedom you think is being infringed?

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."

⬐ marcodiego

>GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software

GPLv3 puts requirements on what a DEVELOPER can do with the code

⬐ simion314

> The developer is a user

then he should not put restrictions on other users then himself. The point is that all users should have the freedoms not only the developers, the only limitation is that you can't abuse users.

A good example would be a quote I heard in a play of Uncle Tom's cabin (this was a translated and adapted so it might not be present exactly like this in the book). So in the play a french and some americans debate slavery and the salve owner says something like "America is the land of the free because we are free to own slaves" , like that slaver some companies and developers want to be more free to abuse others (put DRM to lock people, create proprietary formats, spy on users, nag them etc).

IMO we all are free to chose the license for our work, and if anyone wants to make his work BSD or proprietary it is his rights, but they should not complain when someone chose GPL because he decided that he is concerned about user abuse.

⬐ mrob

The GPLv3 worked exactly as intended. The GPLv3 was primarily meant to solve Tivoization, and GPLv3ed works cannot be legally Tivoized. Business models are outside the scope of Free Software.

⬐ systemvoltage

Top comment on YT:

> I love Linus so much. He has opinions and doesn't hold back with them.

Yep, this is the steve jobs era people that were straightforward. Linus can be a lot better with his initial reaction "It's horrible" but you can see through the outer shell that he is a really reasonable person and doesn't come across as this evil lord archetype people push on him. His knee-jerk reactions are so outlandish that after a while you just dismiss them as comedy.

Our society is eradicating people with strong opinions. It's is a huge loss.

⬐ paulmd

I wouldn't characterize a tendency for hyperbolic excess to be a good thing even if it's just rhetorical. You can see in any thread mentioning his opinions that nobody really digs for the deeper meaning, they just take him at face value.

His comments on AVX-512 are a great example. He later toned them down after his ridiculous excess was challenged, just like you say. But nobody ever brings that up when the topic is discussed, just "HAY GUYS DID U KNOW LINUS SAID AVX-512 IS JUST BENCHMARKETEERING AND NEEDS TO DIE A PAINFUL DEATH!?!?". And now apparently it's such a worthless waste of silicon that AMD is implementing it on Zen4 too... cause Lisa Su loves spending a bunch of silicon on a "few meaningless benchmark wins" too apparently.

It's like the old adage, "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on". Well, the ridiculous hyperbole gets halfway around the world before the correction gets its pants on too. Nobody ever hears his retractions, just the initial hyperbole. First impressions matter.

⬐ twodave

How different is this from people spouting off their political party lines without really understanding the platform? It's human nature. We should not be required to let morons doing moronic things dissuade us from our natural reactions and feelings.

I personally enjoy the way Linus tends to lead with his emotional reaction and then explain the layers behind it. I get the impression he often backtracks from his initial position because he's just giving the topic more thought, which is a mature response. The fact that he's a well-known figure doesn't excuse him from the privilege of being a human who learns.

⬐ paulmd

> The fact that he's a well-known figure doesn't excuse him from the privilege of being a human who learns

being a well-known leader does convey a certain expectation of emotional maturity and moderation. Hyperbolic and mercurial individuals are generally considered to be a poor fit for leadership positions.

Yes, it may be human nature to react emotionally, but this is something most people grow out of at a fairly young age, and we certainly expect our leaders to be reasoned and measured about their reactions.

⬐ twodave

I guess I don't really disagree with you. Still, there's value in knowing how people really feel about a topic, and with Linus that's rarely in doubt.

⬐ ddtaylor

"The FSF is full of crazy bigoted people" (Linus Torvalds 2014)

⬐ finnthehuman

> big·ot·ed /ˈbiɡədəd/ adjective

> obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

That's the FSF by design, right?

The use of bigot as pejorative has shifted what people may intuit the definition to be.

⬐ Evidlo

10 seconds later: "I overstated that a bit. The FSF has a lot of nice people in it, but some of them are a bit too extreme."

⬐ temp667

Thank goodness the FSF basically failed.

Linus - FSF is "filled with crazy bigoted people"

Then the guy keeps on going on how "we" can get Linus to stop. Who is this "We" attacking linus?

⬐ taf2

My favorite quote from Linus in this talk:

"When somebody else wrote the code, you don't get that choice, right?"

⬐ ChrisArchitect

this isn't really news -- it's a historical commentary now, his aversion/issues with GPL evolution are well documented from multiple articles/appearances. The whole discussion in here is all in past tense.

⬐ antattack

Also Linus: GPL V3 is a fine license.

Overall Linus Torvalds did not like how V3 was forced onto 'unsuspecting' GPL v2 users due to the 'or later' license assignment.

⬐ CrLf

The "or later" bit was meaningless until the first GPLv3 (or later) code change was introduced, and it wasn't forced by anyone since it wasn't even part of the license.

Users of GPLv2-or-later software cannot use GPLv3 clauses against other users (such as patent grants), as either party can always claim to be using the code under either license. GPLv2-or-later is thus fine.

The "unsuspecting part" comes from people relicensing under v3 without understanding how radioactive it is. And it is radioactive not because of any software-related concerns, but because of extraneous stuff (like Linus says).

Funny enough, the most radioactive bits come from trying to cover things that are better fought in other grounds, like software patents.

⬐ Blikkentrekker

The number of persons who earnestly say that it is a good idea to license one's work under or later-licenses is quite boggling.

It is putting one's work into the hands of license that does not yet exist, it is irrevocable and once the F.S.F. brings a new version and one does not like provisions thereof, one cannot go back.

⬐ CrLf

Imagine I use software "X" which is licensed under GPLv2-or-later and put it inside locked-down hardware.

Then someone else comes along and chooses to use it under GPLv3, then proceeds to sue me because I can't lock down GPLv3 software.

Problem is... when you choose the GPL version in an "or later" scenario, you're choosing for yourself, not others.

Thus "or later" posed no problems by itself.

(The same exercise can be made regarding the patent clauses.)

⬐ fsckboy

you locked it down under v2, there's no problem there, and only the author can sue you for violating the old license or the new one, which you have not done.

⬐ blendergeek

While I can see why some wouldn't want to use an "or later" license, I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be.

While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code. As it is already under the current version of the license, if you do not like the new version, you can simply stop using it for future additions. If I license something under "GPLv2 or later", and the FSF releases GPLv3 that is the SSPL, I can simply keep using my existing code under GPLv2. If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0, then I can once again keep using my code under GPLv2. In either of these cases, I don't have use the new version of the license on new versions of the software. While the existing software is always "GPLv2 or later", later additions can be "GPLv2 only".

An "or later" license allows for making my license compatible with future versions of the GPL. Personally, I see this as a good thing.

⬐ dosshell

You can also dual license your work. If a new license version appears you can read it through and then decide if you want to distribute your work with that license _too_.

⬐ j16sdiz

Only if you are the sole author.

If you have accepted third party contribution and don't have any copyright assignment agreement (which is... Most of the projects out there), you can't relicense easily.

⬐ rurban

Not official GNU projects. They can easily switch their/our projects to GPL-4 when the urge arises.

⬐ athrowaway3z

This is fundamentally wrong. I don't care if you like GPLv2 or not, but this is clearly showing you can't read or haven't read it.

Its not about the user keeping his code under GPL2, its about other parties being required to keep their changes under GPL2 and accessible.

⬐ blendergeek

> This is fundamentally wrong.

Would you provide a point-by-point rebuttal? If not, would you at least provide some evidence of your position that my post is "fundamentally wrong"?

> I don't care if you like GPLv2 or not, but this is clearly showing you can't read or haven't read it.

I have read GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, aGPLv3, the X.ORG license, all forms of the BSD license, the appache license, several versions of the Mozilla License, amongst others. Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well.

> Its not about the user keeping his code under GPL2,

My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. Even once a new version of the GPL is released, other contributors will have to contribute under a version of the GPL. If the best versions are only under a later version of the GPL, maybe I will switch to GPLv4.

> its about other parties being required to keep their changes under GPL2 and accessible.

So it seems that you are worried that future contributors will release their contributioins only under the "later" version of the GPL and these new contributions will thus not be compatible with the older version of the GPL. This definitely could happen. However, many projects already dual license under GPLv2or3 so I don't see this as much of a concern. Sure we are adding GPLv2,3,orLater but these issues already exist and already don't cause too great an issue (in my opinion).

⬐ athrowaway3z

"fundamentally wrong" and "you cant read" are a poor choice of words in retrospect and i should have used "Fundamentally misrepresents the issue" and "you appear to not understand why GPLv2 exists".

> Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well.

I think the issue stems from:

> "I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be."

It is ambiguous weather you are "not sure about your logic", or if you are "not sure about Blikkentrekker logic". I took it to mean the latter. This puts your comment in a very bad light and set me off because it fails to acknowledge the issue Blikkentrekker is raising.

> "While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code"

A developer chooses the GPLv2 in part to what it does to _future_ code. `I provide this for free and we are all required to contribute future improvements for free, no-take-backsies`.

>"If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0"

is among the worse case scenario's for a developer that chooses GPLv2. It invalidates their choice and leaves only `I provide this for free` and is the core of the issue at hand.

> My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like.

And this is a perfectly fine counter. Its a matter of if you think the risk is worth it.

⬐ hutrdvnj

Yeah, but this quote is out of context. With context it makes much more sense.

⬐ ASalazarMX

Wait, we first need to know if the OR in "GPL v2 or later" is short-circuit or strict evaluation.

⬐ twhb

I read this comment then watched the video and this comment misled me. He did not come around to accepting v3 after just procedural complaints, he said it’s fine for other people, who actually want its new conditions, but it’s not an update to v2 and should have been a separate license.

Linus on GPLv3: https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU

He really doesn't like it.

I think this is true, with the MIT license being the most popular.

From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

⬐ ghaff

Furthermore, unlike many other projects, Linux is not licensed GPLv2 or later and doesn't have copyright assignment. This makes changing the license unilaterally at least problematic. Not necessarily impossible but, at least some would argue the permission of all the contributors would be required which would be basically impossible.

⬐ beermonster

Yes, Linus himself mentioned they'd all need to be contacted and agree. He also said he saw the GPLv3 draft and so it was an early and conscious decision to not have a 'GPLv2 or later' license.

⬐ ghaff

There were differences of opinion at the time. Eben Moglen said something to the effect that it could probably be relicensed on the theory that its history suggested it could be treated as a collective work. But it would have been controversial and Linus didn't want to anyway so discussions never went further than that.

Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...

> it was a resounding no according to Linus' very public rant at a Debconf a few years back

This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU&t=241

⬐ jancsika

Yes, thanks for the link.

Digression-- I'm sure the FSF doesn't appreciate it, but there is something very disarming about Linus ending his rant calling the entire FSF "bigoted people," and then immediately following it with, "I may have overstated that a bit."

It's a very unprofessional and risky way to joke around, especially after making the accusations he made minutes before. But the fact that you can hear how the room laughs and carries on after he essentially calls himself a "drama queen" tells you that pretty much everyone understood the upshot (whether or not they appreciated the joke).

That makes me think that of how rotten online communication is. In person, a maintainer of one of the biggest open source projects can call an entire organization one of the worst insults, and probably none of the members of that organization in attendance even considered interrupting him. Yet HN needs a "cool down" period to keep participants arguing about semicolons from throwing their device at the wall.

Edit: typo

I do not think he 'deserves' to get paid. It is nice if he gets paid, but I dont even see a moral obligation (not speaking of legal). I mean the idea of gpl2 (at least from linus and my perspective) is nicely laid out here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU Paraphrasing:'I give you my sourcecode and if you change it and give the software away, please give me the changes'. For MIT license (which Marak choose) (this is not in the video link), it is more like: 'please use this for whichever cause you like, I dont even expect software changes back'.

⬐ derefr

Everyone deserves to get paid (in the sense of moral desert; i.e. people "deserve" human rights.) You don't have a personal obligation to pay them, though.

Solving that discrepancy isn't going to be done in an HN comment; it's the Great Work of capitalist statecraft.

⬐ andi999

I agree he deserves to get paid like everybody else, but not because of this work he did. Unfortunately not all societies do that, so uually the common route to get paid is to get (a) work (contract), somebody is willing to pay for.

⬐ an_opabinia

I believe prison laborers deserve to be paid minimum wage, despite their convictions and despite their inability to negotiate. Additionally minimum wage should be raised to a living wage.

You’re taking an overly reductionist view, incompatible with things like “equal pay for equal work.” He definitely deserves to get paid for his work, and it’s obviously a matter of by whom, and he’s fed up with giant corporations using his stuff despite being able to pay him, and he’s totally in the right even if he’s insert-some-undesirable-here.

It is good if there are more decisions of the highest court. Legal uncertainty is harmful for open source. And as long as there are points in the GPL without leading decisions, this legal uncertainty will continue and open the door for trolls to blackmail open source users with out-of-court settlements in order to enrich themselves.

Actually it would be so simple: I give you source code, you give me changes back, we're even. [...] If you make hardware that locks down software, it's your decision as a hardware maker; it has no impact on my decision as a software maker to give you the software. [...] To me the important part was always: I give you software, you can do whatever you want with it; if you make improvements, you have to give them back. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU).

⬐ m463

I think there is a spectrum of opinions on where the dial is set, but what is best for all of us, from say a 10 or 30 year viewpoint?

I wonder if GPL3 didn't have quite so many changes if it would have been more widely accepted.

But listening to RMS he said he didn't realize that companies would "tivoize" everything so he added:

"(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever purpose."

Personally I think it kind of sucks that much of computing coming out nowadays has locked bootloaders.

⬐ Rochus

In European law, the actual party will is the determining factor in contracts, not the (possibly ambiguous) wording. This is especially important with licenses such as GPL, which are full of unclear, secondary regulations. That is why the clear, unambiguous statement of the original Linux author is important.

Good software, which is not used due to (unnecessary) legal uncertainties, and thus cannot benefit from the support of potent companies, is of no use to anyone, neither in the short nor the long term. The sooner legal uncertainties are removed, the better. Unfortunately, companies avoid legal disputes, often at all costs; that is why it is so easy to blackmail them with out-of-court, very often unfounded claims from patent and copyright law.

When I buy a product, I want it to work well and have good value for money. For this it is irrelevant if the bootloader is locked. If I want to make a system to tinker where I can replace the firmware, I buy a Raspi. The Raspi also benefits from contributions from companies that use Linux in devices where I might not be able to replace the system.

⬐ anticensor

> In European law, the actual party will is the determining factor in contracts

It is similar in most other jurisdictions too, but wording predominates in practice.

⬐ Rochus

No, the Anglo-Saxon law (US, UK, etc.) is different and makes no assumptions outside of the contract; the contract is applied verbatim as written, and when something is missing, it is not part of the contract. In Europe on the other hand the contract is just one piece of the puzzle and the judge can add, remove or modify clauses in search of the true pary intentions; in case of conflicting elements, the judge may refer to what is applicable under the usual rules for such contracts and even change the contract type. That's why Tivoization with GPL v2 is unquestionably legal in USA, but there is still a certain legal uncertainty in Europe, because there is no supreme court decision.

EDIT: clarifications

⬐ anticensor

> and when something is missing, it is not part of the contract.

What if a clause is ambiguous to benefit both parties equally, but not at the same time? Are both parties forbidden to act on their own in those cases?

⬐ Rochus

There is no general answer. The judge decides and instructs the parties how to proceed. Contracts in Anglo-Saxon countries are usually much larger and regulate many more eventualities than one is used to in Europe. It is then usually a matter of presenting evidence in the sense of the specific wording of the contract.

> the linux kernel, along with a lot more stuff, declared it was sticking with the GPLv2 and not moving to the GPLv3. when your movement says “here is the new version of The Right Way To Do Things” and several of your largest adherents say “nah fuck you we’re going with the old version” that is not a good sign.

Some public comments Linus has made about the choice to stick with GPLv2 over GPLv3: https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU.

> and also most of the people using Linux right now are using it by accident, distributed as ChromeOS or Android

Also, those kernels are now built with LLVM. https://clangbuiltlinux.github.io/ (not all devices in existence, but all new ones for the past few releases of both distros and many old chromebooks that received recent kernel upgrades).

⬐ de_watcher

Well, they've noticed how GPL is bad for their EEE strategy, so they've grasped the first occasion to fight it: can't do much with the code that is GPLv2, but can hinder the license update.

⬐ detaro

Who's "they" that have hindered the Linux license update?

⬐ ndesaulniers

> Well, they've noticed how GPL is bad for their EEE strategy, so they've grasped the first occasion to fight it: can't do much with the code that is GPLv2, but can hinder the license update.

Can you describe "their EEE strategy" in more detail?

What license update? And hinder it how?

⬐ AstralStorm

Not exactly. GPLv3 has serious problems with proprietary hardware. As stated, it would prevent current GPU drivers and many current network device drivers from being possible to use, due to irreplaceable closed source binary blobs and on device cryptographic authentication of said binary blobs.

Which is essentially the same as tivoization...

Immediately nvidia-driver and radeon drivers would be illegal.

⬐ electricant

Which is not actually a bad thing per se.

Those drivers do work better than their free/open-source counterpart but are hard to install (especially if secure boot is enabled) and do not play nice with the whole GNU/Linux ecosystem.

⬐ AstralStorm

No, it would be illegal to install those drivers. Not hard at all.

Radeon drivers specifically play nice with the ecosystem, but they feature crypto firmware blobs.

Network drivers tends to be good neighbors too.

Nvidia drivers cause more of a problem, as do ugly smartphone GLES drivers. (Not to mention very custom network chipsets there.)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

He also has refused to release any of his projects under GPLv3 (or even “v2 or later”).

⬐ kasabali

Which is too bad because CDDL is compatible with GPLv3 thus that would make integration of ZFS possible

⬐ textread

OP here, now that FreeBSD has removed gcc from base system & Apple has removed bash, I felt we can discuss this.

⬐ belorn

The fundamental disagreement between Linus and FSF on the Tivoization issue is if DRM adds an legal restriction. Linus do not see it as legal restriction. He does not like DRM, and he don't think it benefit users, but he does not see it as a additional legal restriction and thus the inclusion of the anti-drm condition in GPLv3 is seen as an overreaching that goes beyond the scope of a copyright license. It is a hardware issue.

FSF see laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as extending copyright law to include DRM as a legal restriction. The law exist as part of copyright law, it adds additional legal restrictions for software inside DRM protected devices, thus it an additional legal restriction. GPLv2 prohibits additional legal restrictions, so FSF added language to GPLv3 to make sure that DRM as an additional restriction is also prohibited.

Two very different views. Neither side has show any tendency to move closer to the others view on the matter.

I don't see the connection with FreeBSD or Apple. People from neither community has made a statement if they see DRM as a legal restriction or a hardware decision by manufacturers.

Interesting video of Linus Torvalds' stance on the GPLv3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

(edit: this is actually cited in a comment on the linked page, but I'm leaving the link here so HNer who won't visit Stack Exchange may find it)

Linus explains his reasoning on that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

Here is an excellent video of Linus talking about why he specifically chose the GPLv2 and how he felt betrayed when the FSF released GPLv3:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU Torvalds on GPLv2 vs GPLv3

⬐ mempko

I found his arguments either dishonest or ignorant. He basically said "Look, I don't have an ideology to push, I chose the license because it served MY needs, FSF is pushing an ideology is GPLv3 and I don't like that.". However, he certainly has an ideology which I call "The roman conception of freedom". It is favored by laze-faire free market types. This is not an "ideology-free" argument.

He is pushing an ideology just as much as the FSF is. At least the FSF is honest and clear about what that ideology is.

⬐ Analemma_

Torvalds has always been very upfront that he doesn't care about software freedom. Note that choice of words very carefully: not "opposes" but "doesn't care about", one way or the other.

He has said from the beginning that the choice of GPL for Linux was a technical one that he thinks produces the best code, and that the GPLv3 offered no technical gains and thus wasn't worth switching to. Presumably if he thought switching to a different license altogether produced better code, he'd do that.

Is not having an opinion on software freedom an ideology? I don't have an opinion on most political questions in, say, Mongolia. Does that give me a particular ideology on whatever political spectrum Mongolia has?

⬐ leoc

When you are effectively governing a large chunk of Mongolia, then yes.

⬐ Phrodo_00

Also, Linux code is owned by whoever wrote it (or paid to have it written I guess), so it'd a major effort to try and change its license.

⬐ TrashMacNugget

True, but Linux originally used the GPLv2, but IIRC never said anywhere whether it was GPLv2-only or GPLv2 or any later version, or just "GPL". According to the GPL, that means:

> If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

So Linux could've theoretically upgraded to the GPLv3 (or GPLv2+). However, Linus didn't like that idea, and in 2006 edited the COPYING file to say that it was GPLv2-only. If you really wanted to, you could take the 2006 source code and make a GPLv3 fork of Linux.

⬐ kelnos

> If you really wanted to, you could take the 2006 source code and make a GPLv3 fork of Linux.

You certainly theoretically could, but maintaining, updating, and modernizing such a beast would be out of the reach of most people and organizations. 11 years of progress can't be replicated so quickly, especially when you consider you'd need to do it in a clean-room sort of fashion to be entirely aboveboard, which means many people who are already well familiar with the Linux kernel couldn't even work on it.

At any rate, I think your estimate of the timing is off: I found references to the "GPLv2-only" language in the kernel's COPYING file as far back as linux-2.4.0-test8, which was released sometime in 2000, and I didn't really try to go farther back.

⬐ ygaf

Isn't the question whether he is obliged to change license? It's not pushing ideology to sit on the license you are using.

⬐ asveikau

The copyright for Linux (the kernel) is not held by a small number of people or organizations. There are many contributors with copyright notices all over the tree. I don't think he could relicense if he wanted.

⬐ jancsika

He's not arguing that the FSF shouldn't push an ideology. Nor is he arguing that he doesn't have an ideology-- he states it clearly in the video regarding his understanding of the GPLv2-- "I give you the source code, you give me back your changes, and we're even."

He is making a claim that FSF tried to persuade him that the GPLv3 would satisfy Linus' ideology under the reasoning that it allows him to invalidate the tivoization clause.

Here's a quote from Linus from that video:

"Yes the GPLv3 allows you to say tivoization is not an issue for us. But it allows somebody else to take the project and say, hey, the GPLv3 without tivoization is compatible with the full GPLv3. So I will make my own fork of this and I will start doing drivers that use the full version 3. And where am I stuck then? I'm stuck saying, hey, I gave you the source code and now I can't take it back (your changes). That's completely against the whole point of the license in the first place."

Basically Linus' only requirements-- "use and give back"-- are a subset of the FSF's requirements-- "use, give back and don't lock down." Linus is accusing the FSF of claiming that the GPLv3 could do a fine job supporting Linus' requirements when in reality it doesn't protect his software from gaining additional requirements which he explicitly stated he didn't want added. And what would protect his software from that? The very license that they were persuading him to change-- GPLv2. In other words, he's accusing some unnamed representative(s) of the FSF of lying to suit their own ends.

That's rather hard to believe IMO, as I've never read or heard anything from the FSF that is purposely deceitful in this manner. Additionally, I haven't read statements from Linus that are purposely deceitful, either.

I can only surmise that a tiny amount of doctrinal difference collided with enormous egos to create a pathetic waste of time, energy, and goodwill.

⬐ dragonwriter

> That's rather hard to believe IMO, as I've never read or heard anything from the FSF that is purposely deceitful in this manner.

The FSF has claimed that several licenses that have requirements not present in GPLv2 are compatible with GPLv2; the FSF is very aggressive in pushing the use of their license and their bias for such use definitely colors their representation of facts.

⬐ jancsika

But do you have any evidence of a developer telling them, "I don't want the additional requirements GPLv3 would bring," and the FSF replying, "That's fine, you can just use GPLv3 without the such-and-such clause"?

Aggressively pushing the GPLv3 and misrepresenting its efficacy to GPLv2 fans are two completely different things.

Well, if we are going to talk of mistakes, we can argue that GPL v3 and AGPL in general are in violation of Freedom 0 and that AGPL is definitely discriminating against fields of endeavour (OSI's rule 6).

For libraries in particular, or for the Linux kernel, it's the software developers themselves that are the users. Compare this:

- What GPL v2 says is simply "you can use this source code, but you have to give your changes back when distributing them".

- What GPL v3 says is "if you use this source code, you can't use it on your device unless you follow my rules" and Linus Tolvards thinks the same [1]

- With AGPL this is much worse, because AGPL is effectively an EULA and not just a copyright license, as AGPL redefines what redistribution means and severely restricts usage on people's own servers

In my opinion AGPL should have never been approved as either a Free Software or an Open Source license, being effectively a modern freeware, non-commercial license that escaped the scrutiny of Free Software advocates simply because it appeals to emotions whenever "freedom" gets mentioned, being like when the church asks for funding from the local government, requests which can't be easily refused, since it would position government officials to be against God.

To measure the truthiness of this claim, you only need to witness that AGPL gets used in dual licensing schemes, where the AGPL option is simply offered because it's useless for anything else than for demo purposes and good marketing.

But for the sake of argument, if you think there should be a distinction between users and developers, consider that modifying the software for your needs is simply usage and that this artificial distinction is what got Richard Stallman pissed enough to create the GPL and start the GNU alternatives in the first place.

> a code written in GNU GPLv2 may become non-free

By FSF's own admission, that is not true. Code released under GPLv2 can never be non-free.

In terms of copyright, that code will always be redistributable under GPLv2 (i.e. once released, you can't take it back). In terms of patents, it comes with an implicit grant. Oh you're speaking of binaries installed on devices? But then we are not talking about source code or the project itself, but about actual usage.

And going back to Free Software vs Open Source, you simply can't redefine what Free Software means depending on whims or speculation. And if this is the trend, then the Free Software community is positioning themselves to be against the spirit of Free Software.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

>But that promise depends on their definition of "in the same spirit," which is nebulous.

Yes, very famously Linus Torvalds felt that GPLv3 was not in the same spirit as GPLv2. He described it as "a violation of everything version 2 stood for".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

Linux is not GPLv3 for a reason[1]. Not to mention it's only a kernel, not an entire OS. Basing your OS on a Linux kernel doesn't expose your other code to the GPL. Writing apps to run on a Linux system doesn't expose your code to the GPL.

The Minoca OS folks are asking for the community to contribute code to their OS that's licensed under GPLv3. GPLv3 supporters are necessarily a subset of open source supporters. I contend that the subset is small enough that a Minoca OS licensed under GPLv3 will continue to experience a lack of widespread circulation.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

> > Torvalds doesn't believe in software freedom

> Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made.

If you ever hear his explanation of why he used the GPL (which boils down to "I give you code, you give me code back, we're even"[1]) skips over the software freedom aspect. Not to mention that he's one of the advocates of the open source movement which doesn't have any views on software freedom.

I can't give you an explicit quote where he said "I don't care about software freedom", but it becomes quite clear if you look at his actions (particularly toward the GPLv3, where he clearly differentiates his views from the FSF's views[1] -- and he carefully avoids using the term "freedom").

There is a quote where he claims that vendor lock-in isn't morally bad[2], which is the best I could find after 10 minutes of searching:

> The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it is ok to control peoples hardware.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

[2]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118236278730043&w=4

⬐ deepnet

Voluntary control & choice of control vendors, maybe.

But enforced monopolistic control - c'mon there is no freedom there.

Not to mention legally enforced monopolies destroy the market for everyone, including themselves.

Pretty much the 1st observation Adam Smith makes.

Without freedom and thus competition there is no progress, everything stagnates.

Music & film industry is a case in point, every change they lobby against turns out to be insanely profitable when they are forced into it. ( 78's, radio, videos, mp3 , streaming - all were going to 'kill' the industry till they didn't )

Fat cats won't change or innovate without competition.

Control abates all innovation.

Enforced control of your hardware is slavery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU - he telegraphed GPLv3 many, many years in advance - just because it wasn't published until 2007 doesn't mean there wasn't talk about it for a long time before then.

Well, have a crack at it, then. Here is Torvalds talking about how he sees the point of the earlier GPL being subverted by v3, and that he thinks that the FSF lied to people about it. In his opinion, it should have been named a different license. He goes into detail about how it's not the license he hates, but how the FSF behaved around it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

> since they wrote both the GPL itself and the four freedoms

Also, having been part of organisations that have operated against their own philosophical principles and mission statements, I don't accept that the FSF is immune to changing their angle on things. And having hung around plenty of radical progressives growing up, I've seen some handy re-rationalisations of earlier positions.

Overall, I'm on the side of the FSF. But fucked if I'm going to be part of this thing that progressives do, which is piss all over their allies (in this case, ubuntu) just because their opinion is slightly different to one's own. If someone's going to raise the "nuh-uh, subversion of license = evil", then fuck it, here is a video of someone at the heart of the whole licensing debate literally saying that the FSF behaved immorally about licenses too.

⬐ zymhan

Interesting, I hadn't seen that video before. For those annoyed by video, he gets right to the point.

⬐ Steltek

But isn't it healthy to re-examine your core beliefs and made tweaks or even whole substitutions? I don't see anything in GPLv3 that directly contradicts the original four freedoms. It was evolutionary to close loopholes like Tivo.

But you have a second point: how you treat your allies and other sympathetic parties. Sadly, idealism seems to trend towards that behavior and it's pretty counterproductive.

⬐ vacri

I absolutely agree that you should be allowed to change your opinion over time, as long as you do it 'honestly'. For example, it bugs me when people lambaste politicians for having a different opinion now as opposed to 20 years ago. But at the same time, by 'honest' I mean being open about the changes and not quietly twisting them or hiding them, which is what Torvalds is complaining about in that video. In the organisations I mention I was part of, the same thing applies - lip service paid to the (sometimes stale) principles, but the behaviour was rationalised very baroquely to fit those principles.

Re: the idealism stuff, my armchair psychology take on it is this: conservatives are passionate about things not changing, so minor differences don't matter so much because the overall goal is the same; progressives are passionate about things changing, so if the cart is going to move at all, it really needs to go in my direction. Add in the human predeliction for not seeing the forest for the trees, and the progressives will squabble over what really are minor differences.

I am sorry that I have to say this, but large parts of the GNU/Linux community are just irrational idealists hard to work with. Read the GPLv3, it's a great political document, and somewhere in there there also is a software license, hidden between the lines.

Linus always said: He cares about the code back and otherwise not what vendors do with it. He is not in any sense one of those GNU-people about Software Freedom everywhere and for all. When the Free Software Foundation (FSF) created the GPLv3, indeed during the process, Linus already spoke out against it and said he would never ever use it[1]. He cited reasonable use-cases for which vendors have no other way than to not to give open access to devices, in part for example commercial license agreements.

The GPLv3 - from the perspective of the FSF - fixes some vital flaws in GPLv2, from Linus' perspective however is just too strict, forbids use-cases Linux has been used before previously and is extremely anti-business and would hurt the Linux project.

Whether this step of the Linux foundation is right or not, can't say for sure, but I totally understand it. A political anti-business pro-freedom-everywhere radical who already is involved in suing some of the companies she is supposed to work with on that said board? Sounds like a headache you would want to avoid at all costs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

⬐ JoshTriplett

First, the GPLv3 has absolutely nothing to do with this. The enforcement cases in question involve the GPLv2.

Second, it hardly seems "anti-business" to require everyone (businesses included) to comply with the license agreements of the software they use.

And third, the entire issue of enforcement only came up in this context because of this remarkably coincidental timing for LF to decide that it no longer wants community representation. It's sad that the best-case scenario is "just" that this change occurred for entirely unrelated reasons, despite the timing; I'd certainly hope that was the reason, rather than the much scummier possibility of changing the rules with one specific candidate in mind, out of fear that they might get elected.

⬐ Lazare

> Second, it hardly seems "anti-business" to require everyone (businesses included) to comply with the license agreements of the software they use.

I'm old enough to remember when following license agreements was pro-business. Has anyone told the BSA yet?

⬐ egroat

For those of us not quite so old, who are the BSA?

I presume you don't mean the Birmingham Small Arms Company

⬐ icelancer

Likely the Software Alliance.

http://www.bsa.org/about-bsa

⬐ None

None

⬐ Lazare

Like Icelancer said, the Business Software Alliance (although apparently they've dropped the "Business" part of the name). Back in the day, they tried to be the RIAA/MPAA of the business software industry; somewhat infamously they ran campaigns urging employees to "bust their boss" by turning the company they work for in for using unlicensed software, and ran cringe-worthy PSAs about the evils of piracy.

A relic of the days when Microsoft was powerful and evil, Apple was for hippies, and clouds were things in the sky. Seemed kind of scary back then though. :)

Wikipedia has some juicy details (cash bounties, hounding third world countries, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_(The_Software_Alliance)

⬐ hackuser

> large parts of the GNU/Linux community are just irrational idealists hard to work with. ... Linus always said: He cares about the code back and otherwise not what vendors do with it.

I imagine they were called "irrational" when they started the FOSS movement and created the licenses and other tools that are part of it. Yet look what they built and what has been built on top of it. Now it's cool for people who benefit enormously from it, including Linus Torvalds, to disparage it. It's all lefty, hippy 'idealism' after all - if you ignore the enormous practical results.

What foundation are we building for the next generation of engineers and tinkerers? Spying and tracking systems? Closed proprietary silos (like smartphones and web applications)? HTTP/2 and systemd - which may be technically great, but don't provide that same freedom-to-tinker for future hackers.

⬐ ianlevesque

HTTP/2 really doesn't belong in that basket. One of these things is not like the others.

⬐ hackuser

I really haven't dealt with HTTP/2 so perhaps I misunderstand: Doesn't it replace hacker-friendly (and flexible) plain text with a binary code?

I'm not saying the trade-off is bad or good, but there is a cost; it's not free.

⬐ lstamour

Last I checked, ASCII is an encoding, and was transmitted in packets, so if you're relying on tools to decode and unpack your messages, why not simply upgrade them?

Also, people don't seem to complain about the cost of HTTP over SSL in these discussions on HTTP/2. I've never understood that. If you're allowing for TLS, why not HTTP/2?

⬐ hackuser

> ASCII is an encoding, and was transmitted in packets, so if you're relying on tools to decode and unpack your messages, why not simply upgrade them?

ASCII has a much lower barrier to entry. By the same reasoning, everything is 1's and 0's so everything is the same - just use better tools.

⬐ stonogo

Because TLS works with many protocols. Encryption software is hard to write and should be reusable for multiple services; the world is not the web.

⬐ jcranmer

Plain text protocols suck. They give you the illusion of readability, and they can make what looks like the obvious solution turn out to be bug-ridden and rife with security holes. The readability is overrated--even in protocols like XML or JSON, most of the time I need to filter down to a small subset anyways, which requires me to write some sort of tool. And if you're already using a tool for all of your poking, what's the benefit to the input format? A good tag/length/value format (particularly when the tag implies how to interpret the value without needing to know a grammar, sorry ASN.1) is even easier to decode than a CRLF-based protocol, since you don't worry about things like "how long could this line be" or "does a bare LF count as a CRLF? What do I need to do for compatibility?"

⬐ ltp

> Plain text protocols suck. They give you the illusion of readability...

They don't, and the readability is a feature.

I'm not sure how you conflate XML and JSON as synonymous to "protocol" and also requiring tools to filter, but than imply that a "good tag/length/value" format would somehow be superior to the former.

⬐ marcosdumay

Exactly what feature binary protocols can have that make protocols less bug ridden and with less security holes?

Because, well except for readability and ease of debug, that you lose completely by going binary, and message size that improves by going binary, I can't find any other difference.

⬐ hackuser

> Plain text protocols suck

An honest question: Is it possible that they suck for you and people like you, skilled, experienced engineers with sophisticated tools, and with much less time than money - but they don't suck for less experienced, less equipped, hackers or tinkerers with time to try things but little money or expertise?

Remember that those people built quite a few things, from Facebook to Napster to Dell to the web browser to the web itself (just off the top of my head). Empowering them is arguably the key to innovation.

⬐ pdkl95

Plain text protocols help keep interoperability honest and open. They also have benefits that are often overlooked, such as more easily avoiding integer overflow and endian issues.

> If you're already using a tool

Often, I'm not.

> illusion of readability

That depends entirely on the protocol design; some are better than others. Binary protocol can also be a mess. More importantly, binary protocols will always require external definitions, while some text protocols do not.

> bug-ridden and rife with security holes

Changing from readable tokens and ASCIIified intege4rs to packed binary doesn't magically fix bus or security holes.

> what do I need to do for compatibility

That's easy: use the robustness principle[1].

(and most RFC-based protocols say you should send a CRLF).

A possible argument against this could...

> how long could this line be

...also be an argument against length fields. If you want reliable parsing - a very good idea - a good argument[2] can be made to only use context-free protocols (i.e. use parser-combinators).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle

[2] https://media.ccc.de/v/28c3-4763-en-the_science_of_insecurit...

⬐ oldmanjay

To anyone who takes your advice on the robustness principle, don't. Liberal acceptance is a maintenance and security nightmare. Be strict on all boundaries and provide clear errors.

⬐ pdkl95

The robustness principle is fine, but it does need to be strictly interpreted, which I should have mentioned. Too often robustness is used as a license to be sloppy or to abuse lenient parsers with invalid input.

Meredith covers this specific issue at 33:25 in her 28c3 talk I referenced ([2]). "Be definite in what you accept" can emulate traditional "liberal" parsers if the compatibility is strictly defined in the grammar.

I really should have phrased that better; the robustness principle is great historically, and is therefor necessary in many current protocols, but newer protocols should be using well-defined either regular grammars or deterministic context-free grammars. As Meredith and Sergey explain in that talk, moving away form Turing complete protocols would prevent an important class of exploits.

⬐ viraptor

While I agree with that view on GPLv3, the foundation went much further by actually supporting companies which ignore software licenses. You may not like GPLv3, but you're bound by the rules.

In the commercial license world it would be like starting an organisation of companies which repackage windows with new features and sell it, never acknowledging or paying MS.

There's debatable right or wrong and understanding or not, but what some of those companies do is just violation of law and supporting illegal activities. That is what GPL violators do.

⬐ myztic

Without bad intentions: Could you point me to some of the cases you are talking about? I am honestly interested, can't promise I will read everything the next hours, but I will definitely read up on it.

⬐ JoshTriplett

Allwinner: https://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations

VMWare: https://lwn.net/Articles/635290/

⬐ kavefish

@grsecurity went to a sponsor-based model because they kept getting ripped off

Edit: Source https://grsecurity.net/announce.php

⬐ viraptor

The links are already in the comments here... but here you go again:

"Allwinner is joining the Linux Foundation to support Linux and to improve what we see as two important open source software development capabilities: collaboration and compliance" http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2015...

Allwinner GPL violations: https://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations

Other ones - just google big sponsors of LF + gpl violation, there are a few.

⬐ dTal

Context:

"Allwinner is joining the Linux Foundation to support Linux and to improve what we see as two important open source software development capabilities: collaboration and compliance," said Jack Lee, Chief Marketing Officer, Allwinner Technology. "These two concepts are critical yet difficult to master for new Linux community entrants like ourselves."

Is the Linux Foundation "supporting" Allwinner? Or is, as I suspect, Allwinner paying them dues?

https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Corporate_Membership

⬐ pjc50

Is the Linux Foundation "supporting" Allwinner? Or is, as I suspect, Allwinner paying them dues?

Both? The accusation being made is that Allwinner are bribing them to ignore GPL non-compliance.

⬐ viraptor

Consider LF goals "The Linux Foundation protects and promotes the ideals of freedom and generous collaboration established through the development of Linux, and shares these ideals to power any endeavor aiming to make the future a better place in which to live."

How can they have a member organisation which plainly goes against the goals of the foundation? And yes, even by statements like the one published on joining, it's supporting Allwinner by giving them recognition.

⬐ sangnoir

> While I agree with that view on GPLv3, the foundation went much further by actually supporting companies which ignore software licenses. You may not like GPLv3, but you're bound by the rules.

Just to note: the Linux kernel is explicitly[1] licensed under GPLv2 (without the the "or later" clause). This makes GP even more offtopic.

1. http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...

⬐ bcg1

Linus is not a god, and his proclamations are not gospel.

He can crow all he likes about how he wishes he never used the GPL and how he is not political... but the truth is, no one knows what would have happened if he didn't use the GNU license or distribute GNU software. Its theoretically possible that his project would have died on the vine without members of the community who cared about those things and made considerable contributions. Nobody knows, not even Linus.

⬐ kardos

> He can crow all he likes about how he wishes he never used the GPL

Wikipedia [1] has this quote:

> Torvalds has described licensing Linux under the GPL as the "best thing I ever did."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Licensing_terms

⬐ bcg1

That quotation is from 1997.

⬐ kardos

He didn't reverse course as late as 2007 [1]. Where's the article/quote where he "wishes he never used the GPL"?

[1] http://www.informationweek.com/the-torvalds-transcript-why-i...?

⬐ abecedarius

Has Linus said he wishes he'd never used the GPL? That's news to me. I guess it'd have to have been after he wrote Git?

⬐ myztic

Linux would have never been as successful if someone like rms would have called the shots. People still tinker with the GNU Hurd microkernel and it's less usable than Minix. Linus is also no god for me, but he is delightfully pragmatic, someone companies can work with, not against.

⬐ BCM43

"Linux would have never been as successful if someone like rms would have called the shots."

I'm not sure how you can think that when GNU, which is the operating system for just about every single server running Linux, was started by RMS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

⬐ myztic

A lot of userland-stuff is GNU, Linux is the kernel. Kernel + Userland is OS!

So saying "GNU ... is the operating system for just about every single server running Linux" does not make sense.

⬐ nitrogen

Don't start that again. The "GNU/Linux" vs. "GNU" vs. "Linux" argument has been going on long enough without resolution that it's pointless to rehash it.

⬐ Rexxar

I vote for LiGNUx. (Always add one more option when there is already a lot of confusion).

⬐ Zigurd

I've seen some of RMS's early work in relation to LMI, TI, and open source in the early days, before Linux. RMS has never been anti-business. Just anti the idea that closed-source software licensing is a sustainable business model. Very few people in any part of any flavor of FOSS are actively anti-business.

⬐ slgeorge

The problem with that statement is that the vast majority of the software business world interprets anti-proprietary software as being anti-business. And, not entirely without reason given that it's extremely difficult (almost impossible) to build a large software business without licensing. If you're RMS then you point to things like contracting for changes, but much of the software industry would be unsustainable on that footing. For a bad analogy - it's like watching two people speaking variants of English - they're using roughly the right words but both come away confused.

⬐ Zigurd

You say "but much of the software industry would be unsustainable on that footing." That's what you call a tautology: It's very difficult to charge a unit license for open source software. Sure, but is taht relevant anymore?

Android is the most widely used OS on the planet, and it became so faster than anyone expected. What advantage do closed-source vendors actually derive from a fetish for secrecy? Do their customers believe they've got some secret advantage? Does anyone believe Windows has some secret sauce in it that makes it better than other OSs?

Much of the software industry today sustains itself on indirect revenue. Even Microsoft admits it must pivot to ecosystem revenue and away from unit licensing revenue.

⬐ riffraff

To ne fair, if many hackers hadnt embraced linux in the 90s, they might have worked on hurd, there is only a finite amount of hackerness.

⬐ bgilroy26

I agree but the opposite is also true. For many developers who may or may not know very much about the FSF and RMS, Linux represents the "free as in libre" operating system. They compare it to Apple and Microsoft and see it favorably.

Without the GPL and GNU, Linux would not have the same brand. The GPL is part of Linux's public image and a public image is what drives usage.

⬐ bcg1

    Let me ask you one question
    Is your money that good
    Will it buy you forgiveness
    Do you think that it could

    I think you will find
    When your death takes its toll
    All the money you made
    Will never buy back your soul

⬐ mjcohen

However, if there is no forgiveness and no soul, money is a useful (but not the only) metric.

⬐ theGimp

1. Attribute that quote.

2. This has nothing to do with Linus, and from what I can tell, parent did not deserve it either.

Linus hasn't made a fortune off Linux. He could have, but he didn't.

⬐ bcg1

1. http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/masters-war

2. To clarify, I wasn't referring to Linus

⬐ e12e

This explains the failure of gcc, glibc and gnu utils/userland to completely fail to gain traction too! /sarcasm

(Although the egcc split was painful, and at long last there are some viable alternatives - it took decades for them to rise up. So it's a little odd that the FSF/RMS would never have successfully been able to develop a project? Obviously the need for a (new) GPL licensed [kernel] is less when there exists a decent GPL licensed kernel (Linux)).

⬐ chris_wot

gcc is already beginning to lose traction to llvm.

⬐ FullyFunctional

I've heard this unsubstantiated claim for years now. It certainly depends on your metric. LLVM still lacks behind in generated code quality on most mainstream platforms [my own unpublished benchmarks]. LLVM appears to attract more mind-share from people leveraging the infrastructure, including writing new front- and back-ends; I'm guessing the code is easier to understand and better documented.

A few years ago I had expected LLVM to have caught up to GCC by now, but I hadn't anticipated the accelerated pace of GCC improvements. I don't know if the competition from LLVM had anything to do with this, but GCC is showing no signs of slowing down.

⬐ wiz21c

could you elaborate ?

⬐ None

None

⬐ e12e

My point was that "already", means "it took a long time". See also: embedded development.

⬐ pjmlp

gcc was largely ignored until UNIX vendors started to sell the development tools instead of bundling them with the OS.

The majority of FOSS users are actually people that don't want to pay for software and never give anything back to the community.

⬐ e12e

> The majority of FOSS users are actually people that don't want to pay for software and never give anything back to the community.

That's two pretty bold (perhaps even inflammatory) statements.

[Perhaps contigent on a) the number of users of commmercial software that either do not pay, or do pay, but do not want to pay - and b) the definition of "giving back to the community" (Is paying for a Windows license "giving back to the community"?) and to wich extent most users of (any-license) software ever give anything back to the community.]

⬐ pjmlp

It is based on my experience on how most companies I ever had any sort of contact, work with FOSS.

Also how the majority of everyone that I know, that isn't a technical user, deals with FOSS. They don't care if it is pirated or FOSS, just that they didn't pay for it.

Why do you think there is hardly any money to be done for desktop FOSS software, which usually isn't subjected to trainings or consulting fees?

⬐ jgillich

I don't think the issue is that they don't want to pay, but that they don't realize they can. Often, when a open source solution lacks some required feature, a proprietary one is chosen. Paying the developer to implement that feature is just not something that comes to mind.

⬐ vacri

> He can crow all he likes about how he wishes he never used the GPL

Torvalds seems to like v2 and not v3[1]. I can't find a source of him saying he wishes he hadn't used the GPL at all - do you have one? It seems that v2 does exactly what he wants - get code back.

[1] "I still think version 2 is a great license": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU - in fact, in this talk, he says v3 is fine as a license (though not for his needs), but his problems with it were the way that the FSF was trying to submarine it into all existing v2 licenses, and misleading people about how it worked.

⬐ lifthrasiir

Like it or not, but those "irrational idealists" are also contributors to the Linux kernel anyway. I do not understand that it is reasonable to remove some stakeholders' rights at all.

(I have another words to say about the GNU/Linux ideology, but I think that's close to irrelevant here.)

⬐ xolve

Agreed, Linus is a man with great knowledge of kernel, but he may be wrong at times, just like RMS ( ;-) )

I can see why anti-corporate licenses are big win for users. PS4 and Macs use BSD kernel. The whole PS4 is locked up and it totally blocks users from doing anything else, though Sony built it from the components they took from community (BSD, LLVM etc.), they don't have to give it back.

On the other hand, I am still waiting for a distro based on Apple's OSS.

Linux, GCC, KDE, Qt, GNOME, Java are GPL (or at least LGPL) and there lies the innovation by masses, we see them running on so much variety of form factors. IMHO they need polish and marketing, but at the end of the day my work gets done and I am very much happy with it.

As a contributor I am sure if I work on OSS, no company should take it, make a product selling like hotcakes (PS4, Macs, iPhone) and then refuse to open it, lock down the devices and not even be obliged publish the modifications.

GPL rocks!

⬐ pnathan

Idealists made the world we live in, usually for the better.

In any case, I don't understand how "pro-freedom-everywhere" is in any sense a slur.

⬐ GalacticDomin8r

"Idealist" is one of those non-descriptive and popular terms like "Agnostic". They describe everyone.

⬐ rmc

The GPL has always been political.

⬐ pheo

I'd like to add that a few "anti-business pro-freedom-everywhere radical[s]" thrown in the mix might be just what consumer software needs...

⬐ ossreality

Does VMWare pay well?

edit: I AM FUCKING ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED THAT THE GP'S COMMENT IS STILL SO HIGH.

Shame on you mother fuckers. Shame on every one of you that have benefited from OSS code, which is every single one of you.

⬐ Lazare

Heavens, imagine how terrible it might have been if one person on a 16 person board disagreed with the consensus of the board. How could they have continued to perform their valuable work?

Sarcasm aside, you're presenting an argument against the GPL and the FSF. I might even agree, but that seems irrelevant to a more specific question of corporate governance of the Linux Foundation.

You're talking about avoiding headaches, but if you want to represent a diverse group of stakeholders, you're going to have some headaches. If the current role of the Linux Foundation is purely to be a voice for large enterprises who wish to exploit Linux, then why did this change? Is it a good change? What organisation does represent the interests of Linux stakeholders?

I mean, keep in mind, the core policy difference is whether or not the Linux Foundation supports following the license of Linux. That's the reason (as far as anyone can tell) that Sandler is disliked and the at large board seats were removed. Can you imagine the BSA working to keep a lawyer who sued software pirates off their board? The very idea is absurd.

After watching this video [1] my hatred of GPL is at a whole new level. However, couldn't a company skate around the requirement by simply not providing any way to update the system? Or more likely a vendor could provide a way to upload a new version BUT the released source would only account for the base system minus the features that came pre-installed.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

⬐ Spivak

I'm a supporter of GPLv3 so I'll try and give a few counterpoints. His argument wasn't that GPLv3 is a bad license but that, for him, GPLv3 was not a logical extension of GPLv2.

However, Linus's interpretation of the GPLv2 in that video was only coincidentally in line with the FSF at the time. The goal of the FSF has always been to ensure user's freedoms above all else and I feel the GPLv3 better accomplishes that end than the GPLv2. From the perspective of the FSF, hardware manufacturers discovered a loophole in the GPL which allowed people to ship GPL code while denying users their freedoms.

I understand that for many developers there's a balance to be struck. Some developers don't care how their work is used and the MIT, BSD, or DWTFYW licenses are perfect choice for them, but some developers decide that they want to be sure that not only will they get source code back but also that their work wont be used to harm users and they're the perfect candidates for the GPLv3.

* Evil meaning

Linus is very anti-GPL3

Quote: "In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I'm their legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about "legality", this is about "morality". The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it is ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself."

For something quite recent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

⬐ Dylan16807

That's a rather silly argument because it's his hardware...

⬐ cma

I'm not saying he's pro, I'm saying for Linux it didn't matter, because be didn't have a choice. For got he didn't go with GPLv3 so no doubt he is against it.

"Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for"

https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU

I think the primary problem was the FSF doubling down on copyleft with gplv3. I think at that point companies realized they'd need to take a more active role in how things are licensed.

And despite LLVM's and clang's history with Apple, it is most decidedly not an Apple project any longer. The LLVM foundation handles that. Looking at commits Google is a likely contender for the biggest overall contributor at this point.

I think this is a good example of mutually assured collaboration amongst companies. Sure some stuff gets split off and made proprietary, like the nvidia shader compiler, but overall more goes into it than out.

I agree with Linus on gpl v2 and gpl v3, v3 is off into the crazy territory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

If anything I'd say this is an example of how taking too extreme of stances even if well intentioned, and I'll even grant them as "right on their own merits" can backfire in the end. RMS can consider llvm/clang an attack on gpl if he wants, but in the end I only see it as developers wanting to have improved tools and are willing to collaborate to do it. the fact that clang-format exists is a good testament to how gcc isn't doing itself any favors with its political stance in regards to being useful in other categories.

But all thats just like my opinion man.

⬐ AnthonyMouse

> I agree with Linus on gpl v2 and gpl v3, v3 is off into the crazy territory.

That's... not what Linus said. To paraphrase, he doesn't like the anti-tivoization clause for his own code because he would rather get driver patches from Tivo that he can use on other hardware than prohibit them from using Linux, and he doesn't like how the or any later version clause is being used to make nontrivial changes to the license, which is why he didn't use it to begin with.

Linus exaggerates kind of a lot. People need to understand that. He said that he "hates" GPLv3, by which he apparently means only that he prefers GPLv2 for Linux, and then goes on to say that GPLv3 may be a great license and he has no problem with people using it for other software.

And I still don't see anything in GPLv3 that you would expect anyone to find shocking or highly objectionable. It's basically just patching the unintentional holes people have discovered over time in GPLv2. 99% of people would never even want to do any of the things it prohibits over the GPLv2.

But as the article notes, some proprietary software companies like to spread FUD, and so a lot of FUD has been spread.

⬐ mitchty

So I exaggerated myself in the "crazy territory" comment, regardless its basically how I feel about GPLv3.

So what FUD specifically is there about GPLv3 then? How is the anti-tivoization clause helpful to companies then? It honestly reads to me as a doubling down on copyleft.

I've talked to a few lawyers and they basically consider GPLv3 a contract that isn't worth bothering with.

Which basically reads to me GPL as generally used code will eventually go by the wayside. If legal people won't buy off on it there is no chance I could convince managers to use it. Net result: less GPL used, user/overall freedom reduced. Dunno I don't see the v3 license as being a good thing. Maybe it plugged holes, but it ensured the ship will hit an iceberg in the future.

⬐ AnthonyMouse

> I've talked to a few lawyers and they basically consider GPLv3 a contract that isn't worth bothering with.

That isn't a reason. Lawyers don't have magical powers to reason about the business implications of legal documents, the interesting thing they can tell you is how the law will treat the words, e.g. if some part of the document would not be enforceable or would do something you wouldn't have expected from reading it. It would actually be interesting if they said something like that, because that would be a reason. Ask them for a reason. Otherwise it's just FUD.

It is quite obvious that if your intent was to produce a tivoized product then GPLv3 is not your friend, because that was the point. But most people don't want to do that, so why should they care?

⬐ mitchty

Generally the lawyers say the need to divulge keys in hardware is the biggest problem. That's a clear problem for a hardware company trying to secure things.

⬐ AnthonyMouse

I guess that depends what you mean by "secure things." If you mean tivoize then no kidding. But what kind of actual security requires the device owner to be unconditionally locked out of the device? It seems to be working as intended.

⬐ mitchty

Backplanes generally that communicate state would be one example. It is mostly things that users shouldn't care about and can easily break things if they try poking about.

⬐ AnthonyMouse

I still don't understand why it would be necessary to unconditionally lock the users out. Nobody says you have to encourage them to do it, but why get in their way? If people want to shoot themselves in the foot, it's their foot.

⬐ wildfire

> I've talked to a few lawyers and they basically > consider GPLv3 a contract that isn't worth bothering with.

Presumably they gave you a reason, along with a sizeable bill?

You seem to have misunderstood the intent of the GNU GPL.

The intent is not to help companies.

The intent is to ensure that users (i.e. us) have continued access to Free Software.

How does the 'anti-tivoization' clause help in that? Imaging you had a device: a TV, a phone, whatever.

It is discovered that the device is actually spying on you; if the device used [1] GNU GPLv3 software you would be entitled to both the source and the keys.

You could then correct this 'mis-feature' and stop the device from spying on you.

If the device used software only under the GNU GPLv2 then you would be entitled to only the source. If the device rejected your attempt to upload new software then too bad.

[1]: A vast over-simplfication, but I hope my point is illustrated.

⬐ sanxiyn

Linus also chose GPLv2 for Git. Why?

⬐ belorn

Because he doesn't like the anti-tivoization clause for his own code.

I suggest watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8 as it gives a up-to-date view which all the necessary qualifiers in one single talk. I especially like the (paraphrasing quite a bit) "GPLv3 is a fine license, GPLv3 is a horrible license, and I like to overstate things if you haven't noticed. For my own code I just want changes back. GPLv2 is a license that does this and nothing else, which is why I use it for my own projects.".