Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

Thanks for posting this. It's obviously had a lot of thought go into
it.

You're welcome ... sorry it took me a while to find this ... I'm not
subscribed to lkml, so if I'm not cc'd on the mail, I don't see the
reply (until I trawl one of the consolidator websites)

I do think there are a few flaws in the arguments however. The biggest
one for me can be summed up in the question "which license better
represents the intention of the GPLv2 in the current world?"

Really, that's not a flaw. Some people like GPLv2 purely on its
practical effect; others because of its political statements. I think
Linus has summed it up much better that I can here:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115915241428792

However, the true strength of GPLv2 was that we could all unite around
it, even if we had different beliefs (as in Free Software vs Open
Source).

When the GPLv2 was drafted it wasn't a legal document in a vacuum. It
came with a preamble that stated its intentions, and it came with
someone who toured the world explaining the intentions and
motivations. There were even plenty of repeat performances for anyone
who wanted to attend :-)

I think the GPLv3 does a better job of expressing legally those
intentions than GPLv2 did. In particular this part of the v2 preamble:

"For example, 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."

but the preamble isn't part of the actual licence. Additionally, if you
see the rights framed in terms of access to modifications, then GPLv3 is
different.

I think that recent developments (such as TiVo v2) have shown that
companies have found ways to give recipients less rights then they
have themselves.

I agree they've found ways of restricting how their hardware is used,
yes. However, I tried to give a rationale of why this isn't necessarily
bad for the open source ecosystem as a whole here:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115920543731682

So I think the parts of the position statement that talk about the
importance of the 'development contract as expressed/represented by
GPLv2' and the implication that this contract would be violated by the
current GPLv3 draft are not accurate. That development contract came
with a clear explanation (or at least it seems clear to me).

Similarly, the position statement states:

"This in turn is brought about by a peculiar freedom enshrined in the
developer contract as represented by GPLv2, namely the freedom from
binding the end use of the project."

but I think this particular 'freedom' comes more from the development
conventions of the Linux kernel community than from the GPLv2. I don't
see anything in the GPLv2 that actually tried to enshrine that
particular freedom. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile thing to
enshrine, I just think it is inaccurate to claim that the GPLv2
attempts in any way to enshrine it.

Actually, no, it's enshrined in GPLv2 in clause 0:

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."

It's the "act of running the program is not restricted".

This is really the crux of the argument with the FSF over the DRM
clauses. If you take the position (as the people who signed the
discussion paper do) that embedded Linux constitutes an end use, then
this freedom from restriction of running the programme is compromised in
GPLv3, and hence is against the spirit of GPLv2 (and thus violates
clause 9 of GPLv2).

To go after Tivo (and not violate GPLv2 clause 9), the FSF has to take
the position that what Tivo is doing is not use, but is distribution.
This is a dangerous shift in precedent because it applies to every
embedded use of Linux (or any other GPL licensed programme).

As drafted, this currently looks like it would potentially jeopardise the
entire patent portfolio of a company simply by the act of placing a GPLv3
licensed programme on their website.

I can't see anything in the current GPLv3 draft which would do
that. Could you explain how that comes about?

That's clause 11 of the current v3 Draft2:

"If you convey a covered work, you similarly covenant to all recipients,
including recipients of works based on the covered work, not to assert
any of your essential patent claims in the covered work."

This means that if you host a GPLv3 covered programme on your website
for instance (even if you didn't produce it or modify it in any way),
you licence any patent you hold covering it.

HP is already on record as objecting to this as disproportionate.

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • An Ode to GPLv2 (was Re: GPLv3 Position Statement)
    ... much about why I dislike the GPLv3, but why I think the GPLv2 is so great. ... license, but it's not even that you don't want to mess with something that ... "never charge any money" part was just asinine. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
    ... behave as if the GPL infects across shared libraries. ... GPLv2 and v3 are compatible, then why are we wasting all of this time ... and money on GPLv3?) ... which is licensed under a GPLv2 only license, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linuxs GPLv2 and GPLv3?
    ... seem to perceive in GPLv3, that were either already present in GPLv2 ... or that are necessary to better abide by the spirit of the GPL ... community might suffer from switching to GPLv3 would be from ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
    ... If so - that could create confusion because someone would have to agree to all the licenses within Linux in order to use it. ... The alternative is to say it's all GPLv2 and exclude GPLv3 from inclusion. ... (The fact that GPLv2 Only doesn't apply to the whole kernel or perhaps even to some past kernels doesn't matter - you still can't package the whole as GPLv3) ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
    ... If so - that could create confusion because someone would have to agree to all the licenses within Linux in order to use it. ... The alternative is to say it's all GPLv2 and exclude GPLv3 from inclusion. ... A disagreement on either the intent, mechanism or action of parts of the GPL license, if you will. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)