Today LWN published an article expressing the position of some Kernel developers on GPLv3 (http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/).
The last sentence is: "Therefore, we implore the FSF to re-examine the consequences of its actions and to abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too late."
What do you think about it ???
--- Stefano Spinucci
What the `Open source' community thinks about a `Free software' license is not very important, their goals conflict with the Free software movement; they want a practical license, we want freedom.
I'm with you.
However, if the Linux Kernel could use the GPLv3 would be better than, as they say, a "Balkanisation of the entire [snip] Universe upon which we rely".
Or do you think that if the Linux Kernel 'll stay with GPLv2 this won't be a problem ???
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
What the `Open source' community thinks about a `Free software' license is not very important, their goals conflict with the Free software movement; they want a practical license, we want freedom.
While I understand the sentiment underlying your sentence, I would suggest that Free Software licenses are practical. One reason Free Software is such a good idea is because it makes a great deal of sense if we consider it with an open mind.
I believe Ben made a good point; the Linux kernel developers have done a lot of good work to bring Free Software to more people. Some of them do this using the term 'open source' rather than Free Software. Perhaps we can generalise and say that some people referring to 'open source' are worried that the term Free Software is too strong.
It's important to remember that we are all traveling along the same road. Rather than striking aggressive positions we should discuss things in a civil way. Let's not bicker.
What the vast majority of us are doing is trying to ensure that really amazing and really interesting technology can exist in a way that makes it fair and accessible to everyone.
Ben suggested that we discuss why the new GPL license is a good idea. Why don't we devote a little time to that? Perhaps some people could mention why they think the new license is a good idea. Perhaps everyone could go and visit gplv3.fsf.org and look at the on-going process. Maybe people could blog about why they feel the GPLv3 will help ensure Free Software remains Free Software.
Regards
Shane
Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
I believe Ben made a good point; the Linux kernel developers have done a lot of good work to bring Free Software to more people. Some of them do this using the term 'open source' rather than Free Software. Perhaps we can generalise and say that some people referring to 'open source' are worried that the term Free Software is too strong.
While what Ben said is true, the goals of our Movement are not entirely technical and I'd say that the technical aspects are secondary. In the beginning of the 80's, RMS thought that everyone would choose to use Free Software, if there was a way to escape from non-free software. That assumption proved to be wrong: people generally don't value their freedom and prefer not to pay much attention.
I must admit with regret that while the proponents of the Open Source campaign are contributing a lot in technical form, they make our job much harder and spreading their "philosophy" is against our goals. A disturbing tendency is that nearly everyone that joins the community (as a user or contributor, or both) shares their views. I fear that the Free Software Movement is being absorbed by the utilitary thinking of these people, and part of the reasons is that that's what they aim -- some of them hope that our philosophy will be forgotten.
It's important to remember that we are all traveling along the same road.
It's important to remember that there is a deep abyss between us and them -- we want to change the society and they want technical excellence. It is useless to drive faster if we can't stay on the road -- and our road is the Freedom Road, not the Not-so-free Open-sourced Highway.
Ben suggested that we discuss why the new GPL license is a good idea.
The purpose of the GPLv3 conferences was specifically this -- to explain to the people that have doubts why the next version will do its job better, that is, will protect users' freedom better. By reading that article I conclude that none of its authors listened to the speeches or read the transcripts.
Why don't we devote a little time to that?
It is pointless to do that, I'm afraid. These people can't be persuaded in our cause and it's just a waste of time and efforts to even attempt to do that -- it will be ignored. Their moto, inspired by their leader, is "Ideology sucks".
I see two major drawbacks that result from their decision not to switch to GPLv3:
* It is a loss for everyone in the community. The Linux kernel won't be protected by the additional clauses in the new version of the license.
* Since the Linux kernel project is influential in the community, the FUD they spread will reach other projects and developers, and many of them will adopt their "conclusions".
What we can do is to apply Ben's idea to other projects that intend to follow Linus Torvalds' views in this respect. The situation with the Linux kernel is hopeless, IMHO.
I see two major drawbacks that result from their decision not to switch to GPLv3:
* It is a loss for everyone in the community. The Linux kernel won't be protected by the additional clauses in the new version of the license.
This implies that Linux can be relicensed, it cannot unless you get written permissions from anyone who has contributed a legally significant amount of code to Linux. Recall that Linux is licensed under the GPLv2-only, and that the GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
* It is a loss for everyone in the community. The Linux kernel won't be protected by the additional clauses in the new version of the license.This implies that Linux can be relicensed, it cannot unless you get written permissions from anyone who has contributed a legally significant amount of code to Linux.
That's exactly what I meant. If even one of them is not willing to give her permission and the specific code cannot be removed, the Linux kernel is stuck with GPLv2.
Or are you saying that there are some contributors that cannot be found and they generally don't have a choice, so they're using such "statements" as an excuse?
Or are you saying that there are some contributors that cannot be found and they generally don't have a choice, so they're using such "statements" as an excuse?
I cannot comment as to what their motive are. But there are surley several people that have passed away, people who simply refuse to relicense their bits, etc.
Also, could someone please explain this "Balkanisation" thing? I come from the Balkans, but I don't understand what that means...
At Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:38:25 +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
Also, could someone please explain this "Balkanisation" thing? I come from the Balkans, but I don't understand what that means...
We've got wikipedia for that. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanisation
Jeroen Dekkers
Yavor Doganov yavor@doganov.org wrote:
Also, could someone please explain this "Balkanisation" thing? I come from the Balkans, but I don't understand what that means...
"Balkanization is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region into smaller regions that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other." Quoted from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization
So i think they mean the fragmentation of Free Software license. But this is nothing which will happen because of GPLv3. We already have a fragmentation of Free Software licenses and GPLv3 will make it better not worse because GPLv3 will be compatible to more licenses than GPLv2.
Cheers, Bjoern
At Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:12:33 +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Why don't we devote a little time to that?
It is pointless to do that, I'm afraid. These people can't be persuaded in our cause and it's just a waste of time and efforts to even attempt to do that -- it will be ignored. Their moto, inspired by their leader, is "Ideology sucks".
If we do it, we wouldn't do it to convince the Linux hackers, but to convince people who know agree with them and might change their opinion.
I see two major drawbacks that result from their decision not to switch to GPLv3:
There is no such decision to be made. Linux has a "GPLv2 only license" and every contributor owns the copyright to their contribution. It's not possible to switch Linux to GPLv3 even if they want it.
Jeroen Dekkers
There is no such decision to be made. Linux has a "GPLv2 only license" and every contributor owns the copyright to their contribution. It's not possible to switch Linux to GPLv3 even if they want it.
It's not easy, but it's possible. You just take written permissions from everyone who wants to give them, and if there are significant bits uncovered, you rewrite the code. That's how it could be done. Unfortunately if the majority of the important contributors do not want to change the licence, it won't be possible to do this.
--David.
On 23-Sep-2006, Yavor Doganov wrote:
While what Ben said is true, the goals of our Movement are not entirely technical and I'd say that the technical aspects are secondary. In the beginning of the 80's, RMS thought that everyone would choose to use Free Software, if there was a way to escape from non-free software. That assumption proved to be wrong: people generally don't value their freedom and prefer not to pay much attention.
I find that enough people *do* value freedom, but they are generally not aware of how much their freedom is being lost. Remember, the culture-hoarding cartel all want general-purpose computers to wither in preference to devices that preserve their current business models.
The vision of the world that they promote, through the extremely powerful communication channels available to them, all support this view: that freedom to create is not important, that culture is to be consumed from on high.
It's tough to fight that endlessly-reinforced vision of culture. But when people get bitten by DRM or when they contemplate the madness of what current culture-hoarding regimes restrict them from doing, they *do* care. However, it's all too easy to run from the concept back into the warm embrace of the game console and the vendor-locked music service.
Our challenge is to make it ever easier for them to both realise the prison they're in, and to escape it when they do.
I must admit with regret that while the proponents of the Open Source campaign are contributing a lot in technical form, they make our job much harder and spreading their "philosophy" is against our goals.
Indeed, this is an ongoing concern. I find that simply talking about freedom instead of "open source", passively refusing to use that term, and having a quick, non-confrontational response to "oh, but this *is* free to download" can work wonders to quickly make people realise there's more to this than expedience.
It's important to remember that there is a deep abyss between us and them -- we want to change the society and they want technical excellence. It is useless to drive faster if we can't stay on the road -- and our road is the Freedom Road, not the Not-so-free Open-sourced Highway.
That's very adversarial, and I don't see how that thinking can help. I also don't think it's an accurate depiction of the views of such people. I find that such people *do* value freedom -- when it's clear that they are worse off without it. They merely have a different threshold for how much convenience they're willing to sacrifice to get it.
It is pointless to [have a public discussion in response to the kernel developers' GPLv3 position statement], I'm afraid. These people can't be persuaded in our cause and it's just a waste of time and efforts to even attempt to do that -- it will be ignored. Their moto, inspired by their leader, is "Ideology sucks".
So the purpose of a response is not to convince those particular kernel developers, but to speak to the people who are observing the discussion. Many of *those* will be amenable to arguments either way; if we have none in response, where they can find it as part of the same discussion, those who have not yet make up their minds will have only the input of the "expedience first" speakers.
Beating an idea into the other party's head is not the purpose of a debate. Having the discussion for the benefit of those who observe it is the purpose.
What we can do is to apply Ben's idea to other projects that intend to follow Linus Torvalds' views in this respect. The situation with the Linux kernel is hopeless, IMHO.
It is illustrative, though. We can show, for example, specific problems that *are* solved by the GPLv3, and indeed specifically how those would apply to Linux, if the license was amenable to change. Hypotheticals can be helpful.
We can speak to the developers of other projects, sure. But the Linux developers have chosen to make their work an object lesson: let's use it.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:55:07PM +0200, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
The last sentence is: "Therefore, we implore the FSF to re-examine the consequences of its actions and to abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too late."
What do you think about it ???
Apart from that sentence I do fully agree with Alfred there. They do believe in 'open source', a mere technical description of a development method. We (at least I) do believe in Free Software, but Alfred already elaborated on that.
However, there is another sentence or better said paragraph that 'worries' me. It says that assigning copyright to the FSF is mandatory when a project applies for becoming part of GNU. That statement is plain wrong (see [0]).
Seeing a comment like that coming from the 'lead' kernel developers it shows us once more that they probably have little knowledge of the workings of GNU, the FSF and also Free Software and its related freedom we believe in.
Regards,
Stephan
[0] http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html (Search for 'copyright')
On 22-Sep-2006, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
Today LWN published an article expressing the position of some Kernel developers on GPLv3 (http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/).
As expected, it's full of revisionist history. The GNU operating system is referred to as the "Linux operating system", and the GNU project merely contributes some parts; indeed, no single GNU project is referred to, but rather the individual tools from the GNU operating system are discussed as separate entities with their own disparate "projects".
While this may be understandable self-centric thinking, it frames the entire document. What is expedient to the Linux developers is seen as the most important thing; so, if there's no problem with the GPLv2 for the Linux developers, there's "no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2" and therefore GPLv3 is a waste of effort.
I agree with Alfred that this thinking should not hamper the GPLv3 efforts; clearly, when one views software freedom as more important than open-source expedience, the rationales for the GPLv3 (openly documented online) are sufficient to necessitate the effort.
Probably a response is needed, but it should not be adversarial. The Linux developers have allowed the GNU operating system, and all free software, to succeed vastly beyond the possibilities that existed at the time Linux was created, and the cause of software freedom continues to be aided by these friends to our cause.
We need to reaffirm solidarity with our friends who drive free software forward but choose to talk about open source, while making clear the free-software purposes that drive the GPLv3 efforts. A factual and friendly response, drawing on the documented rationales for the need for a new GPL, should be made soon. Who wants to volunteer?
On Saturday 23 September 2006 01:10, Ben Finney wrote:
Probably a response is needed, but it should not be adversarial.
Luis Villa, member of the discussion committee A, has written some responses in his blog which are worth reading:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-rea... http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-wrong/ http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-fsf-got-wrong/
Cheers. Bjoern
Am Freitag, dem 22. Sep 2006 schrieb Stefano Spinucci:
What do you think about it ???
This paper was the result, when Linus Torvalds made a survey amongst the most active kernel-hackers... I think, the outcome is no surprise, when a prominent opponent of the GPLv3 asks a very limited number of his strongest followers for their opinion. ;-\
I found this blog is a very good answer: http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-wrong/
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 17:41 +0200, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
Am Freitag, dem 22. Sep 2006 schrieb Stefano Spinucci:
What do you think about it ???
This paper was the result, when Linus Torvalds made a survey amongst the most active kernel-hackers... I think, the outcome is no surprise, when a prominent opponent of the GPLv3 asks a very limited number of his strongest followers for their opinion. ;-\
I found this blog is a very good answer: http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-wrong/
Nice, yes. Also note how biased is the poll they did:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/448853/focus=448853
Look at the -3 vote rationale (also == to 3 ??): I wouldn't want to use v3 (I really dislike it, or my company would have serious problems allowing me to participate using the v3 draft)
If companies will is more important than kernel freedom, then why keeping GPLv2 in first stance? If you asked major companies 10 years ago if they were willing to let their engineers to contribute code under the GPLv2 what would have the answer been? (A clear and sound: "are you crazy?" IMO)
Simo.