GPLv3 vs GPLv2

[TankCatNinjaFish]

I personally look foward to GPLv3, especially after hearing Eben Moglen's take on it on leo laporte's podcast. In particular there are clauses which allow developers to customize the license while not impeding on software reuse. Should cut down needless proliferation of 'little licenses' we see today. But yea, I don't know what the flamefests about it are all about. GPLv2 will still be available, as well as any other libre license.

Part of me thinks that Linus purposely took a hard stance against GPLv3 not because he didn't like it but for practical reasons. If there was a GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 war amongst the Linux kernel developers, there could have been a fork of the kernel into "GPLv2 linux" and "GPLv3 linux", which would be a nightmare for all. However Linus essentially extinguished this possibility by taking a seemingly irrational dislike of the license.

[Vogateer]

I think it unfair to characterize Linus's stance as irrational. He doesn't want to ruin a good thing, and most of his points are valid, while others just seem to be misunderstandings. I can't blame people for not understanding the legalese, because I--and probably most other rational non-lawyers--certainly have a hard time making sense of it all. The GPLv2 is appealing to so many non-FSF people, while the GPLv3's appeal will be limited to people who agree whole-heartedly with the stances of the FSF.

The GPLv3 does seem like a good idea, particularly to stop the mini-license madness that would make life a living hell for people trying to keep track of multitudes of licenses in all the different programs, but all the same I'd prefer that the linux kernel stay under the GPLv2, and it apparently will. Eben Moglen is a great speaker, isn't he?

RMS on the other hand, is usually more than I can take. Statements like this can drive you nuts:

07 October 2006 (America in Ten Years)

Ten Reasons You Will Not Recognize America in Ten Years

I used to consider such articles to be wild projections, but very little of this one is projection -- nearly all of the article is about past events already documented. It is a good summary of many reasons why the United States is today's evil empire, just as the Soviet Union once was.

Now, I haven't been happy with U.S. actions lately, either, but comparing the U.S. to the Soviet Union is pretty silly.

[TankCatNinjaFish]

What? am I missing something? stallman didn't write the essay, nor does it have anything to do with software directly.

[Tsuroerusu]

This discussion just keeps going, doesn't it? Fun stuff, though.

'ey, this is what free speech is for.

Before I start, sorry about misspelling your name, Troels, I was wondering about it when I wrote it, but didn't want to lose my train of thought and forgot to check it afterwards.

No problem, some people here in Denmark that I have met, can't even spell it correctly.

Judging by your other responses in this thread, I can see you've taken my unsolicited advice to heart and no longer have your Intensity Volume Knob cranked up to 11.

You mean that I answer in a more relaxed way?

Okay, here's a question. I'm thinking of the anti-DRM clause, and the ability to tie specific software into the hardware. Has anyone seen the video of how to hack the Diebold voting machine?

Well, that made me wonder. I think everyone here knows that Linux should be the operating system of choice for voting machines for security reasons alone, if not for reasons of openness. The ease with which they could hack the machine was frightening. Would not this digital signature checking method being used by Tivo be a relatively reasonable solution to prevent these machines from running foreign code? It seems to me that GPLv3 would prevent this, a perfectly reasonable use of "Tivoization" methods.

OK, this is one that is largely misunderstood because people don't realize who the end users are. Remember that the GPLv3 says that if I make a machine, and put free software on it, and then give it to another person, if the machine will only run my version because of key signing, I have to give the other person my private key, so they can sign their own version to get it to run. Now, I only have to give the key to that person, I don't have to make it "public".
So, who are the end users of those voting machines? Is it the people voting on them, or is it the people who set them up?
Actually, the end users is the people running the voting, not the people who are voting for some dude to become president (aka the voters), so they don't have to have the keys.
So there, problem solved!
The same question is relavant when we talk GPL terms about web services programs, such as WordPress, that are GPL. Does the webmaster have to make sources public? No he does not, as the use of WordPress is private use or modification. Same thing with those voting machines, you as the one who makes them are only distributing them to the folk who actually sets up the voting, the voters are not receiving the machine, so they don't have to have keys.
Also, if make a machine for myself, that will only run my kernel, and just keep it to myself, that is private use, so no distribution of keys is needed.

This is just one example, but Linus Torvalds is probably right in that a lot more people can rally around GPLv2, which is a license that so many people non-FSF people can love. This doesn't mean that the GPLv3 shouldn't exist, obviously, but the kernel developers seem to be rightfully wary of making such a license change.

You should always be active on a big license change, but as Chris DiBona said on FLOSS Weekly, the kernel will probably never be GPLv3, besides the fact that Linus doesn't like it, if you were to relicense the Linux kernel under GPLv3, you'd have to get permission from EVERYONE who has contributed code that are in the Linux kernel, both companies and individuals, why is that? Because the kernel developers never used the "GPLv2 or any later version published by the Free software foundation" licensing, the kernel is under GPLv2, and only GPLv2.

[Vogateer]

What? am I missing something? stallman didn't write the essay, nor does it have anything to do with software directly.

This was a link that Stallman pointed to, so the article wasn't written by him, the quote is directly from the political part of his website so the quote below the link is taken directly from RMS's site, as you can see here. You'll have to go down the page a bit, he updates it very quickly and very frequently.

Sorry about that. Bad practice to not put a proper link to RMS's site on my previous posts.

[Vogateer]

Okay, here's a question. I'm thinking of the anti-DRM clause, and the ability to tie specific software into the hardware. Has anyone seen the video of how to hack the Diebold voting machine?

Well, that made me wonder. I think everyone here knows that Linux should be the operating system of choice for voting machines for security reasons alone, if not for reasons of openness. The ease with which they could hack the machine was frightening. Would not this digital signature checking method being used by Tivo be a relatively reasonable solution to prevent these machines from running foreign code? It seems to me that GPLv3 would prevent this, a perfectly reasonable use of "Tivoization" methods.

OK, this is one that is largely misunderstood because people don't realize who the end users are. Remember that the GPLv3 says that if I make a machine, and put free software on it, and then give it to another person, if the machine will only run my version because of key signing, I have to give the other person my private key, so they can sign their own version to get it to run. Now, I only have to give the key to that person, I don't have to make it "public".
So, who are the end users of those voting machines? Is it the people voting on them, or is it the people who set them up?
Actually, the end users is the people running the voting, not the people who are voting for some dude to become president (aka the voters), so they don't have to have the keys.
So there, problem solved!

Quite the contrary, I see this as the problem, it's not the voters that anyone is worried about, it's the people who have access to the machine before they're put out. I personally wouldn't want anyone to have the key but Diebold. There's no reason why anyone running those machines should have the key, because there's no reason they should be able to run their own binaries. Keeping the key secret, in this case, makes perfect sense to me.

[Tsuroerusu]

Okay, here's a question. I'm thinking of the anti-DRM clause, and the ability to tie specific software into the hardware. Has anyone seen the video of how to hack the Diebold voting machine?

Well, that made me wonder. I think everyone here knows that Linux should be the operating system of choice for voting machines for security reasons alone, if not for reasons of openness. The ease with which they could hack the machine was frightening. Would not this digital signature checking method being used by Tivo be a relatively reasonable solution to prevent these machines from running foreign code? It seems to me that GPLv3 would prevent this, a perfectly reasonable use of "Tivoization" methods.

OK, this is one that is largely misunderstood because people don't realize who the end users are. Remember that the GPLv3 says that if I make a machine, and put free software on it, and then give it to another person, if the machine will only run my version because of key signing, I have to give the other person my private key, so they can sign their own version to get it to run. Now, I only have to give the key to that person, I don't have to make it "public".
So, who are the end users of those voting machines? Is it the people voting on them, or is it the people who set them up?
Actually, the end users is the people running the voting, not the people who are voting for some dude to become president (aka the voters), so they don't have to have the keys.
So there, problem solved!

Quite the contrary, I see this as the problem, it's not the voters that anyone is worried about, it's the people who have access to the machine before they're put out. I personally wouldn't want anyone to have the key but Diebold. There's no reason why anyone running those machines should have the key, because there's no reason they should be able to run their own binaries. Keeping the key secret, in this case, makes perfect sense to me.

Well OK. I really don't know what to say about the scenario that you're describing, but I am still in full support of the GPLv3. What it comes down to is that I am a computer user, and the GPL is about ensuring computers' freedom, and DRM is a way to get away with circumventing the GPL, and I don't like that one bit. If I buy a computer I should be able to make it do what I want, not what some office dickhead at a big company wants.
Yeah I know someone (CptnObvious999?) will argue that it's me deciding to buy that computer and that I should know of the "terms" of doing so, but say you can't buy a non-DRMed computer in the future or as Eben Moglen described on FLOSS Weekly, that every device with multimedia capabilities is required by law to have DRM built in? Then there's really no way out to the "land of freedom" that is free software, it's a vicious ring of fire that you can't get out of.
Another way to look at this scary "DRM takes over the world" scenario is that what if modern computers at a time in the future will only run stuff from a certain institute, vendor or store? Imagine if Microsoft made Windows only run programs that they had authorized (And the computer would only run Windows), and told the user that this was done to "Ensure he didn't get any malware by accident", then there was no way to even running any type of free software on that machine.

Sure I can buy a computer today and run Linux on it and whatnot, but will this computer do the tasks that people probably do in 10 years? I don't really think so.

The bottom line is this, the GPL is about protection computer users' freedom, not assuring voting machines' integrity, if you want to do that, you have two optins, 1, write your own proprietary OS, 2, use BSD, I don't like the idea of software that our community puts out being used against us.

A reader of LWN.net, replied to a reply on the news article about the kernel developers position on GPLv3, with this:

" The problem with Tivo is not that they did a stealth operation, but that they like Linux because it's hackable, and they benefit from the freedom to tinker the software (to make it do TV stuff and to add spyware to gather data about your use of your TV), but then they rig the device to prevent the downstream recipients from benefitting from this same freedom.

This contradicts the GPLv2 world. In the nineties, the GPL made all software users of GPL'd software interact as equals. Quid pro quo. Share and share alike, etc. Then Tivo found a technology which let them distribute GPL'd software without treating the recipient as an equal. So some words need to be added to GPLv2 to restore the deal that GPLv2 gave everyone in the nineties."
(http://lwn.net/Articles/200651/)

[TankCatNinjaFish]

how does a teenager who doesn't write free software or work in a corporate environment have so much to say about free software licenses?

[Vogateer]

Don't get me wrong, I still think the GPLv3 is a good thing for a great deal of software. I do feel it's important to try to understand the implications of these changes though, and to look at hypothetical cases where the restrictions of the GPLv3, specifically with regard to its use on the linux kernel, would prevent a legitimate use of the encryption key method of locking hardware to software. I can't imagine Tivo being able to do without their "Tivozation" of their hardware and not get lawsuits from various TV businesses, because they didn't "take steps to prevent piracy" or some other nonsense. As long as Tivo is willing to contribute back code changes they make, this seems like a compromise I can live with, and the kernel developers obviously feel the same way.

I agree that what Tivo does is against the spirit of the GPL, but if we're to look at from Linus's point of view, then we know that many people use the GPLv2 who don't really agree with the spirit of the FSF and the people who created the very license the kernel developers are using.

I can't really see the DRMed future happening. People will put up with DRM right up until it gets to be a hassle, then they'll make a stink and go to non-DRM alternatives. People are too lazy to put up with it, and will find ways around it. There are entirely too many people and businesses with a vested interest in Linux, people who would sue to protect those interests.

This brings up another fear one might have of the GPLv3. If you completely alienate these businesses like Tivo, and then someone tries to pass a ridiculous law that would hurt or stall the use of linux, suddenly businesses like Tivo look more like a friend who would join you in a fight to protect everyone's right to use linux.

See how IBM and others have taken the side of linux against SCO? Do you think they would let someone pass a law that would prevent the use of linux in whatever way they feel they can make money off of it? I want them to be there supporting linux in the trenches. The more businesses Linux has on its side, the less likely it is that linux can be religated to the sidelines or made illegal to run on a majority of hardware. So if you're looking at it like that, suddenly the GPLv2 protects some very important parts of FSF's ideas, while not pissing off businesses who disagree with GPLv3 and losing those potential allies.

Just some thoughts. Like I said, GPLv3 will have its uses, but I see why the linux kernel developers have taken their stance.

[Tsuroerusu]

how does a teenager who doesn't write free software or work in a corporate environment have so much to say about free software licenses?

Do you have a problem with it? We have free speech for a reason you knw.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the GPLv3 is a good thing for a great deal of software. I do feel it's important to try to understand the implications of these changes though, and to look at hypothetical cases where the restrictions of the GPLv3, specifically with regard to its use on the linux kernel, would prevent a legitimate use of the encryption key method of locking hardware to software.

Actually, in my opinion the use of DRM is not legitimate, because it uses a loophole in the GPL to circumvent it, the GPLv3 is closing that loophole by making DRM practically unusasble, you could still put it in there, but you have to give the users you key, simple as that.

I can't imagine Tivo being able to do without their "Tivozation" of their hardware and not get lawsuits from various TV businesses, because they didn't "take steps to prevent piracy" or some other nonsense. As long as Tivo is willing to contribute back code changes they make, this seems like a compromise I can live with, and the kernel developers obviously feel the same way.

So as long as a criminal pays his taxes he can just continue stealing stuff from people?
(Not saying that TiVo is the criminal, it's just an example)

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to modify something that I bought myself, and sure I could just not buy a TiVo box, but I doubt I can buy any mainstream DVR box that doesn't have any DRM in it.
Also I don't see why people who distributes GPLed software should be able to not give anyone receiving the software the same rights as they have.

I can't really see the DRMed future happening. People will put up with DRM right up until it gets to be a hassle, then they'll make a stink and go to non-DRM alternatives. People are too lazy to put up with it, and will find ways around it. There are entirely too many people and businesses with a vested interest in Linux, people who would sue to protect those interests.

Rather be safe than sorry in this regard I say, because you know that the RIAA and MPAA is gonna be lobbying hard to get a law in place that would make for a DRMed world, and judging by their previous successes, I say we need to be on our guard.

This brings up another fear one might have of the GPLv3. If you completely alienate these businesses like Tivo, and then someone tries to pass a ridiculous law that would hurt or stall the use of linux, suddenly businesses like Tivo look more like a friend who would join you in a fight to protect everyone's right to use linux.

As I said before, just put the DRM in userspace, and not in kernel space, and remove the DRM, and you're fine, how hard can that be? Shit, Apple can do it with iTunes on one of those crappy MacBooks that they sell.

See how IBM and others have taken the side of linux against SCO? Do you think they would let someone pass a law that would prevent the use of linux in whatever way they feel they can make money off of it? I want them to be there supporting linux in the trenches. The more businesses Linux has on its side, the less likely it is that linux can be religated to the sidelines or made illegal to run on a majority of hardware. So if you're looking at it like that, suddenly the GPLv2 protects some very important parts of FSF's, while not pissing off businesses who disagree with GPLv3 and losing those potential allies.

Well, such a law is technically already in place in a lot of countries, it's called the DMCA.
If you have a computer with that Sony rootkit you are not allowed to remove it in any form or fashion. So to outlaw Linux on consumer systems, you have to essentially just put copy protection on a Dell, or use TPM (Which essentially is DRM) to lock-out Linux of consumer PCs.

It's not a very hard thing to do, with the power that the RIAA and MPAA has in terms of lobbying in the US congress.

Just some thoughts. Like I said, GPLv3 will have its uses, but I see why the linux kernel developers have taken their stance.

Well, I don't see why TiVo has to directly "work around " the GPL by using DRM, they could just have their DRM run in userspace, if it isn't already, like iTunes essentially does, and that seems to work quite well.

If the FSF or someone else feels that we need a GPLv3ed kernel (Maybe because Linux stays under GPLv2 for the next years), you could just take one of the BSD kernels and GPL it, and there, done deal!

[Vogateer]

I understand that you're really against the way Tivo does things. But Linus Torvalds has made it quite clear that he has no problems with Tivo at all, and that he's fine with it. He clearly doesn't consider the GPL to have been circumvented, and believes the GPLv2 is working exactly as he wants it to. The license agreement is between the creators & owners of the software and the subsequent users and developers of that software. If Linus and the other kernel developers don't consider Tivo's practices to be exploiting a loophole or a circumvention of the license, then it seems unfair to use this language to describe what Tivo is doing, no matter what you might think of it.

I believe it more accurate to simply say that you disapprove of what they're doing, rather than to suggest that they've somehow "worked around" their obligations. If they're contributing back their code, they're living up to their obligations as far as the kernel developers are concerned, and I still don't see anything wrong with this arrangement. No, I don't like DRM or people controlling what software I use, that's why I'm slowly building up components to build a MythTV box, but if other people are okay with it, then there's no reason they shouldn't be able to do it.

I wouldn't want the GPLv3 to stop Tivo's practices, nor stop other future users of this practice where there might be legitimate uses, as with my voting machine example. I just feel like we shouldn't prematurely limit the use of Linux in these machines simply because people so badly want to stop Tivo from limiting their hardware to their own software.

The DMCA really doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about with regard to companies who demand linux. Besides, living in America, people don't really pay much attention to the law anyhow. Honestly, passing a law like the DMCA really doesn't stop Americans from doing whatever it is they want to do. You see very few people stopping their filesharing, or people not playing their DVDs on linux. If we learned anything from Prohibition, it's that people in America are going to do whatever they damn well please, and no law will stop them from doing it if they want it badly enough. Companies can lobby for whatever laws they want, it won't change much of anything, and if they try to stick to their antiquated business models, they'll be dead before they've had a chance to cause much harm, and all this crap will just fall to the wayside.

It would be bad business for most hardware developers to shoot themselves in the foot and lock out linux from their systems, cutting out possible sales. There might be a few who get paid by Microsoft to do so, but I gaurantee you Microsoft can't pay enough money to prevent linux from being used by so many businesses for their servers. Not to mention it would be inviting more monopoly lawsuits for Microsoft without any real benefits. So long as companies and other people demand linux, vendors will sell hardware for it.

[Tsuroerusu]

I understand that you're really against the way Tivo does things.

TiVo is just the example everyone uses, I am against using DRM in order to not give two of the GPL's freedoms to users.

But Linus Torvalds has made it quite clear that he has no problems with Tivo at all, and that he's fine with it.

Well that's his problem, I'm not gonna try and convince the guy of anything, he apparantly has his mind set.
If say the Debian people would like a GPLv3ed kernel, they could get one into their *still in development* Debian GNU/kFreeBSD distribution.

He clearly doesn't consider the GPL to have been circumvented, and believes the GPLv2 is working exactly as he wants it to. The license agreement is between the creators & owners of the software and the subsequent users and developers of that software. If Linus and the other kernel developers don't consider Tivo's practices to be exploiting a loophole or a circumvention of the license, then it seems unfair to use this language to describe what Tivo is doing, no matter what you might think of it.

I believe it more accurate to simply say that you disapprove of what they're doing, rather than to suggest that they've somehow "worked around" their obligations. If they're contributing back their code, they're living up to their obligations as far as the kernel developers are concerned, and I still don't see anything wrong with this arrangement. No, I don't like DRM or people controlling what software I use, that's why I'm slowly building up components to build a MythTV box, but if other people are okay with it, then there's no reason they shouldn't be able to do it.

OK, read this and tell me what you think: http://linuxlala.net/thoughts/?p=114
(Not saying this article is why I have the opinion that I am)

I wouldn't want the GPLv3 to stop Tivo's practices, nor stop other future users of this practice where there might be legitimate uses, as with my voting machine example. I just feel like we shouldn't prematurely limit the use of Linux in these machines simply because people so badly want to stop Tivo from limiting their hardware to their own software.

The DMCA really doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about with regard to companies who demand linux. Besides, living in America, people don't really pay much attention to the law anyhow. Honestly, passing a law like the DMCA really doesn't stop Americans from doing whatever it is they want to do. You see very few people stopping their filesharing, or people not playing their DVDs on linux. If we learned anything from Prohibition, it's that people in America are going to do whatever they damn well please, and no law will stop them from doing it if they want it badly enough. Companies can lobby for whatever laws they want, it won't change much of anything, and if they try to stick to their antiquated business models, they'll be dead before they've had a chance to cause much harm, and all this crap will just fall to the wayside.

It would be bad business for most hardware developers to shoot themselves in the foot and lock out linux from their systems, cutting out possible sales. There might be a few who get paid by Microsoft to do so, but I gaurantee you Microsoft can't pay enough money to prevent linux from being used by so many businesses for their servers. Not to mention it would be inviting more monopoly lawsuits for Microsoft without any real benefits. So long as companies and other people demand linux, vendors will sell hardware for it.

Only time can show us what the future holds, but in terms of DRM and stuff, I don't see a bright future, especially with this new HDCP crap and all the TPM stuff, it's scary!

[Vogateer]

I read the article, which simply further illustrates that the GPLv2 is being used by people who don't believe in the four freedoms ideology, or certainly not in the interpretation of those freedoms as presented in that blog entry and as held by RMS. For people who want those four freedoms protected in that manner, then the GPLv3 will be the best thing since sliced bread. For people who use the GPLv2 for other reasons, the GPLv3 will not serve them well. If I were in the the kernel developers' shoes, I would stick with the GPLv2.

I admit some of the stuff out there like the DMCA is scary, but it all usually settles down. The big companies were all in a tizzy when VHS came out and people could record programs until they figured out how to make money off it. These things usually blow over as companies either die out or adapt.

[CptnObvious999]

Ugh, this thread has become so redundant. I have dropped out of the conversation because everyone just keeps saying that they are fine with hardware DRM so long as they contribute back or they are totally against it. These are personal morals and I doubt will be changed by anyone anytime soon. Lets just accept the fact that there are 2 sides because IMHO this discussion has gone no where.

[Patrick]

Maybe we can the big guns on to say their peace?