Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-17T05:48:33Z

On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
> >
> > No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people
> > don't *agree* on the "spirit".
>
> They don't have to.
>
> Just like nobody but you can tell why you chose the GPLv2, nobody but
> RMS can tell why he wrote the GPL. And the intent behind writing the
> GPL is what defines its spirit.

"Charging for programs is an crime against humanity"

> > Yes, people have brought out the argument that the GPLv3 actually
> > even changes the spirit,
>
> And that's the point that I'm fighting here. It does not change the
> spirit. It's still ensuring that Free Software remains Free:
> respecting and defending the four freedoms defined in the Free
> Software definition.

See, you can't even keep the FSF's "Free Software Definition" and its
inherent "religion" out of the discussion. Sure, the FSF can claim that the
GPL is intended as a way to "defend" the "Four Freedoms" defined *BY* *THEM*,
but unless alluded to in the license, the only bearing it can have, anywhere,
is on the "intent" of the license, as seen by the FSF. And if the "ability to
run a "covered work" on any piece of hardware" is "freedom 0" then binary
distribution is in violation of the "spirit" - I can't run an x86 binary on a
PPC. Isn't that a "designed in hardware restriction" that violates
the "spirit" of the license ?

> >> I've already explained that the anti-Tivoization provision is in line
> >> with it.
> >
> > .. and we have already explained to you that it's irrelevant.
>
> It is relevant. It was the point that my participation was intended
> to address.
>
> I guess it is just too hard to accept that an FSFer could not be
> trying to force GPLv3 down your throat or some other such nonsense.
>
> > - The GPLv2 was ok with Tivo.
>
> There's disagreement about this, even among developers of the kernel
> Linux, and you know it.
>
> I know you're always right and I pretend to respect that ;-), but why
> do you think your opinion should prevail over theirs? Don't you
> realize that they're as entitled as you are to enforce the license,
> and in the way *they* (not you) perceive and meant to license their
> code?
>
> And then again, this is not something I'm overly concerned about. I
> probably don't have enough contributions to Linux for my take on it to
> make any difference whatsoever.
>
> This is not the real issue at all. The real issue, that brought me
> here and got you to name calling me and the FSFs, is that there were
> false claims about the GPLv3 that I wanted to dispell, particularly
> the point about its changing the spirit. The anti-tivoization
> provisions are in the spirit of the GPL, and so much so that a number
> of people perceive them as already covered by GPLv2.
>
> > - The GPLv3 tries to stop Tivo.
>
> A minor nit, but no, it doesn't. It tries to stop the practice of
> tivoization on programs licensed under the GPLv3.
>
> TiVo has a number of choices, and so do other tivoizers, even if they
> adopt software under the GPLv3.
>
> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
>
> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
> love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?
> That's what I don't understand. This is so obviously contradictory to
> me that it's almost funny, and you've so far dodged my questions about
> this and refrainied from commenting on this contradiction so much that
> it looks like it's a blind spot in your mind.

Not in the least. They still have to release their changes if they want to
sell their devices. Or are you so blinded by your belief that the FSF and RMS
can't be wrong that you can't understand that?

> > I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I?
>
> Yes. That's precisely why I don't understand your stance. Because I
> expect you to be intelligent, but starting from your stated motivation
> for choosing GPLv2, and from the consequences of the anti-tivoization
> provisions, you'd satisfy your motivations better with v3.

It is only *YOUR* opinion that the GPLv3 is the better license. As Linus has
explained, he doesn't share your viewpoint.

> Tivoization reduces the motivation for customers of tivoized devices
> to improve the software. You end up with contributions from the
> manufacturers alone, instead of from all the user community.

No, it reduces their motivation to improve the software on *those* devices. If
they like the software enough to actually download the source, they probably
also liked it enough to install it on their computer *AND* will modify it to
make it work better on their computer.

> With explicit anti-tivoization provisions, you may very well lose
> contributions from some tivoizers, but for those who change their
> stance, you gain far more contributors. You don't need a lot of
> tivoizers to take the path of freedom for you to win big time in the
> bottom line that you posed as the only relevant one.

With your argument about reduced motive shotten down this portion falls apart.

> You see why I don't understand your position?
>
> > They are also "anti-anything-else-that-might-want-to-lock-down-a-
> > specific-version-for-security-or-regulatory-reasons".
>
> It's not, this is false. "Lock down" is permitted. It just won't
> work if the business model depends on modifying stuff behind the
> user's back. But other cases of "lock down" are permitted:
>
> this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party
> retains the ability to install modified object code on the User
> Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
>
> > - Not everybody thinks like you or agrees with you.
> >
> > - In particular, the original copyright author in the kernel does *not*
> > think like you, and *realized* that he doesn't really like the FSF
> > religious agenda years and years ago, and made sure that the FSF
> > cannot control the licensing of the Linux kernel.
>
> I hereby acknowledge, one more time, that I accept these facts.
>
> Since we're in such a good mood now, would you mind acknoledging some
> other simple facts, such that we can end this discussion?
>
> - the spirit of the GNU GPL, written by RMS in the FSF, is to keep
> Free Software Free, respecting and defending the freedoms of users of
> software licensed under the GPL

Agreed. The disagreement is about what that spirit is. I feel that its spirit
is in the free and open exchange of ideas, as personified by the software
people write. I *ALSO* feel that it's spirit lies in the phrase "do whatever
you want with the software as long - but if you add your own ideas to it,
give them back to the people like your inspiration was given to you."

You, the FSF and, apparently, RMS, feel it is about the "Four Freedoms" as
defined by RMS. I'm quite sure that my view is much more common among the
people that *DON'T* think that the FSF and RMS are never wrong.

> It can serve other goals, and some people, yourself included, chose
> it for other reasons, but the intent, the spirit of the license is
> what its author intended it to be, just like the intent behind each
> contribution to Linux is whatever the author of the contribution
> meant it to be.
>
> - GPLv3 does not change this spirit
>
> On the contrary, it advances this spirit. Given that defending
> these freedoms is the mission of the FSF, it's no surprise that it
> does revise the GPL to do it. It's not like it has a choice.

Again, that is *your* version of the "spirit".

>
> - Tivoization reduces the incentive for contributions
>
> Customers of tivoized devices can't enjoy or even test the benefits
> of their modifications to the software on the device where the
> modifications would be most useful for them.

I agree to the "can't enjoy or test" bits. But I don't believe that it reduces
anything. Personally I feel that anything that exposes people to "Free
Software" is a *BONUS*.

>
> - anti-tivoization provisions encourage tivoizers who can respect
> users' freedoms to do so
>
> If the choice is that or not being able to change the software for
> the user or adopting another platform, they may very well choose
> this option, and then you get not only more users and mind-share,
> but also far more contributors, and the community of developers that
> forms around the product benefits the former-tivoizer as well.
>
>
> Are these so hard to accept?

Yes. Because a number of your "facts" are massively flawed. Now, please,
you've proven to me that you can't, in fact, do any *objective* thinking
about this topic.

When you are ready to drop your pre-conceptions and think *objectively* about
the topic, come back and talk. Until then, go away.

DRH

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.