Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

Chase Venters
2006-09-27T23:16:19Z

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Theodore Tso wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 01:37:37PM -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
>> I think one thing that should have happened a _lot_ sooner is that you and
>> others should have made clear to the startled community that you object
>> precisely to the anti-Tivoization clause, not because of any technical
>> reason or interpretation but because you don't see anything wrong with
>> Tivo's use of Linux. It would have been nice but totally optional to
>> engage in dialogue with the FSF. But slandering them about their license
>> development process, or their intentions with regard to using Linux as
>> leverage, is counterproductive whether true or not.
>
> This has been made clear to Eben and the FSF, for a long time. The
> FSF has simply chosen not to listen to Linus and other members of the
> kernel community. In fact, I've never seen any interest in a
> dialogue, just a pseudo-dialogue where "input is solicited", and then
> as near as far as I can tell, at least on the anti-Tivo issue, has
> been simply ignored. But in any case, it should not have come as a
> surprise and should not have startled anyone.

Perhaps I came off too strong, but I meant what I said, and I'm not only
talking about things being made clear with Eben and the FSF. Frankly, I
don't know what did or did not happen behind closed doors and it would be
wrong of me to make assumptions about that.

What I was really addressing here is that the whole F/OSS community
exploded over the news that Linux was not adopting the GPLv3. I think it's
fair to say that the reason why Linux is not adopting GPLv3 (aside from
the very practical matter of gaining the consensus of copyright holders)
is that Linus and other top copyright holders don't think what Tivo is
doing is wrong. But when that statement first came out, it was almost lost
in the noise of "The FSF is not going to listen to us, and what about
encryption keys?" The former probably has no place outside of LKML; the
latter is the sort of thing you'd bring up at gplv3.fsf.org if you wanted
to participate in the process.

So a lot of people spent a lot of time thinking Linus was just confused
about the license and its intentions and that if they could just show him
why he was reading it wrong he'd change his mind. The point I'm trying
to make here about what _should_ have happened a lot sooner is that the
problem should have been defined in the simplest possible terms: "We don't
want to cut off Tivo. We don't think they are in the wrong." Then it boils
down to a simple difference in philosophy and everyone can move on.

> Regards,
>
> - Ted

Thanks,
Chase Venters