GPLv3 vs GPLv2

[Tsuroerusu]

No RMS wouldn't do it by himself. But from what I have read the free software zealots are always flaming him whether it be in his mailing list or the IRC or whatever.

What would they be flaming him for? The fuckin' kernel is GPL FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!
That just makes no freaking sense dude! If they don't like a technical direction, fine, fork the darn kernel!

Also by zealot I mean something similar to fanboy, in the sense that they are not willing to compromise.

Well, why should RMS compromise? Tell me, why should he? And what should he accept? It makes zero sense for him to "accept" non-free software, had he accepted it 20 years ago, like many of his colleges did at the MIT AI Lab, we wouldn't have GNU/Linux today, just a world of forked UNIXes and dominated even harder by Microsoft.

never underestimate the power of hackers. But like I said it is possible however unlikely, I would rather give the companies at least some freedom without having to change their business model.

Never underastimate the power of big wallets and a shitload of lawyers who can make even the slighest bit of doubt end up in you loosing the law suit.

Say the Nintendo DS ran Linux, Nintendo would not like you loading your own firmware because 1) it could mean you could play pirated games and 2) it could be hacked to exploit other DS's and make them expensive bricks (this happened to the PSP IIRC although it wasn't sent through wifi).

Well, if they use and benefit from free software, I don't care what the reason is, the user should have the rights that the GPL grants him. The GPL was written for making sure the users of software had rights, not to let some freaking company do as they liked, and if you have a problem with that go use a BSD both technically and philosophically.

Doesn't that defeat the porpose of it? That's like encrypting your harddrive and then giving a malicious hacker the key/password.

Bravo Devon, you actually read what I stated, for once, instead of going on in your own misinformation (Referring to our conversation on Jabber last night).
And that's the whole point, render DRM so useless, that no one is gonna use it.

[Vogateer]

Damn, Troells, you do get defensive and combatitve in a hurry, don't you?

The anti-DRM bit of the GPLv3 seems unnecessary. As long as they show you the code, that's more important than the access to their hardware. Of course, I won't be buying any such hardware, and I won't be buying any of the "Trusted (Treacherous) Computing" crap either, but I do think they should be free to do what they want with it, as long as they show everyone the code.

Except for the fact that you've essentially been robbed of freedom 0 that the GPL gives you, plus you can't do shat with the sourcecode, because you can't change the kernel running in the machine.
Just showing people the code, but now allowing people to use it for anything on their hardware I think is very unfair if someone profits from free software, I have no problem with people selling free software, I fully support Novell with SLED 10, but I have a problem with people using stuff like DRM as a workaround for stuff the GPL normally would allow.

I'm no programmer, and have to resort to inductive reasoning instead of personal experience, so a certain amount of ignorance on my part in this arena is inescapable, not that it stops me from voicing those principles.

Just using DRM doesn't mean you can hide the code, does it? My understanding is the DRM in Tivo just means you can't use your own code on their hardware. As far as I can make out, Tivo still have to make the code available if they improve it. So, hypothetically, if they're using mplayer to play videos, and they fix a bug in it, they're still required to contribute that fix back. If that's not the case, then that changes the whole "tit for tat" thing, but I don't think this is allowed.

Would companies start turning their back on linux because of something like an anti-DRM clause?I'd hate to see them just go to BSD and be more like Apple. I'd just let them have their DRM as long as they contribute their code back.

Why would they do that? I doubt IBM uses DRM/TPM in their servers to force their customers to run a specific version of Linux or AIX.
A such DRM clause would hit people like TiVo, but for guys like Novell, IBM and others, it just means that they have new weapons against software patents.

Don't get be wrong I love BSD (OpenBSD is my favorite) they are great OSes, but I think the GPL adds something special to Linux, this blog post should explain what I mean: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd[/quote]

I think CptnObvious covered this with the embedded device thing, which is exactly what I was thinking when I mentioned vendors or businesses stopping their use of linux. I seem to remember someone using mplayer and they tried to avoid contributing their code back into mplayer, and they quickly gave in to pressure to comply with the GPL. That code made mplayer better, regardless of the fact that you couldn't load software onto that particular device. I'm sure this can happen in many other ways.

On another note, Troells, I don't know if you mean to come off as abrasive, but that seems to be the "tenor" of more than a few of your posts. It's almost like you're trying to beat people into submission. I've never seen one person change their mind when someone comes at them with such force, they usually just burrow down and become even more defensive and unwilling to move from whatever claim they've made. I'm guessing it's just because you're passionate, and I can understand that, but I swear if you take a different tone, you might get people to listen to you instead of just arguing with you.

[Tsuroerusu]

Damn, Troells, you do get defensive and combatitve in a hurry, don't you?

Nah, I just like to discuss stuff. Plus I like the concept of free speech.

I'm no programmer, and have to resort to inductive reasoning instead of personal experience, so a certain amount of ignorance on my part in this arena is inescapable, not that it stops me from voicing those principles.

Me neither, so that's why I didn't argue with the fact that Linus gets a lot of hatemail because of technical stuff.

Just using DRM doesn't mean you can hide the code, does it?

Well, I think it's gonna be extremely difficult to figure out of the kernel in binary format, zeros and ones, does anything nasty.
If the company puts a spywared kernel into say a cellphone, and does release some modified source, but avoids releasing the spyware, how would anyone ever find out that it's in there? Let alone be changing it.

My understanding is the DRM in Tivo just means you can't use your own code on their hardware. As far as I can make out, Tivo still have to make the code available if they improve it. So, hypothetically, if they're using mplayer to play videos, and they fix a bug in it, they're still required to contribute that fix back. If that's not the case, then that changes the whole "tit for tat" thing, but I don't think this is allowed.

Well, see that's where we have different opinions, because I'm of the opinion that if I buy a computer of any kind, and if it runs free software, I should be able to change that software, for example if I wanted to make it easier to use my TiVo (I don't have one) for watching my 50 GB porn collection (Yes it actually is that big, along with 20 GB hentai anime), then I should be able to change that, because if a company is willing to use GPLed software, then they are willing to abide by the license's terms and the GPL tries to guarantee the user certain freedoms, let's look at those for a minute:

* Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
* Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
* Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
* Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

So, if you look at freedom 1, it mentions that I can study the program and make changes, and then combine that with freedom 0, essentially, that means changing what software is on, say a TiVo.
So if I wanted to make Pr0nVo, well, why should I not be able to? Look, I go to the store, pays 200 bucks, or whatever it is, for the box, so it's MY property, plus it runs free software which inherently grants me rights as a consumer to use it for stuff it might not be meant for.

I think that somewhere in the current GPL, there is something that says something in the area of "you can't restrict a person from running his own version" but it's so fainth that TiVo and other companies can just ignore it.

I think CptnObvious covered this with the embedded device thing, which is exactly what I was thinking when I mentioned vendors or businesses stopping their use of linux.

Well why would they? I don't really gets what's so bad about allowing the users to run their own version of stuff, for example, the Microsoft's Xbox was hacked and hacked real good, the Xbox hackers gave Microsoft the chance of releasing a Linux bootloader, for a nominal fee since it has to be on a DVD, that would run on unmodified boxes, or they would be forced to release information and exploit code to the public. So Microsoft's stubborness made piracy much worse for them, if they had allowed Linux to run, the Xbox hackers would have been willing to not disclose that vulnerability and give it directly to Microsoft so that they could try to fix it.

I seem to remember someone using mplayer and they tried to avoid contributing their code back into mplayer, and they quickly gave in to pressure to comply with the GPL. That code made mplayer better, regardless of the fact that you couldn't load software onto that particular device. I'm sure this can happen in many other ways.

Well, again, that's where we see things from a different perspectives, you seem to be of the opinion, and if you're not please correct me, that as long as the company releases the sourcecode so potential bug fixes can be used upstream, everything is good. Well that code might be usable for some stuff, but I view it a lot more from the end user's persepctve. Because the freedoms that the GPL gives him are essentially taken away, sure he can modify the program and run it somewhere else, but really the GPL refers to changing that instance of the program so that it does what YOU want it to do.

I think that's a restriction of the rights the user gets from the GPL, because he is both freedom to run the program and he is also free to study and change it, and the combination of those two are restricted, by measures external of the Linux kernel, key signing.

On another note, Troells,

It's Troels, just so you know,

I don't know if you mean to come off as abrasive, but that seems to be the "tenor" of more than a few of your posts. It's almost like you're trying to beat people into submission. I've never seen one person change their mind when someone comes at them with such force, they usually just burrow down and become even more defensive and unwilling to move from whatever claim they've made. I'm guessing it's just because you're passionate, and I can understand that, but I swear if you take a different tone, you might get people to listen to you instead of just arguing with you.

The only reason I talked a little harash to CptnObvious999 was because I had an IM conversation with him where his arguments was based directly on misunderstandings of the GPLv3, Linus' FUD.
I don't mean to take a harash tone, but it annoys when people don't sit down and understand shit, for example next time my mom wants to know how to attach a file to her email, I'll refuse to tell her, because she don't want to learn how to do it, she just want to do it, which I hate.

For example, I think most Linux advocates get irateated when Windows people are like "Well Linux is so hard to use, I tried Gentoo 1½ years ago and couldn't even get it installed", well try SUSE, Mandriva (2007 will be out in a few days) or Ubuntu instead for crying out loud, they are made to be user friendly, Slackware is meant to work great and be a solid distro, that doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with user friendliness.

Likewise, I hate when people bash RMS or FSF based on misunderstandings and FUD, and the same way around, but I see that happening a lot less, if at all.

[Patrick]

Excellent discussion with Eben Moglen on FLOSS Weekly:
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.ogg ... SS-013.ogg
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3 ... SS-013.mp3

[CptnObvious999]

Just using DRM doesn't mean you can hide the code, does it?

Well, I think it's gonna be extremely difficult to figure out of the kernel in binary format, zeros and ones, does anything nasty.
If the company puts a spywared kernel into say a cellphone, and does release some modified source, but avoids releasing the spyware, how would anyone ever find out that it's in there? Let alone be changing it.

But if the kernel that is included is affected and the source code is not it would be very hard to tell because the kernel that is affected is already in binary and having the key to run it wouldn't make it any easier to find it.

I think CptnObvious covered this with the embedded device thing, which is exactly what I was thinking when I mentioned vendors or businesses stopping their use of linux.

Well why would they? I don't really gets what's so bad about allowing the users to run their own version of stuff, for example, the Microsoft's Xbox was hacked and hacked real good, the Xbox hackers gave Microsoft the chance of releasing a Linux bootloader, for a nominal fee since it has to be on a DVD, that would run on unmodified boxes, or they would be forced to release information and exploit code to the public. So Microsoft's stubborness made piracy much worse for them, if they had allowed Linux to run, the Xbox hackers would have been willing to not disclose that vulnerability and give it directly to Microsoft so that they could try to fix it.

Yes because making companies completely change how they work is definately what they want. GPLv2 is all about the fact that it is the best license for development

[The only reason I talked a little harash to CptnObvious999 was because I had an IM conversation with him where his arguments was based directly on misunderstandings of the GPLv3, Linus' FUD.
I don't mean to take a harash tone, but it annoys when people don't sit down and understand shat, for example next time my mom wants to know how to attach a file to her email, I'll refuse to tell her, because she don't want to learn how to do it, she just want to do it, which I hate.

I don't remember misunderstanding it I simply remember you saying "iTunes can still run under Linux" a bunch, I have no log files to look back onto. But it is not Linus' FUD it is his technical view and I do understand the GPLv3.

For example, I think most Linux advocates get irateated when Windows people are like "Well Linux is so hard to use, I tried Gentoo 1½ years ago and couldn't even get it installed", well try SUSE, Mandriva (2007 will be out in a few days) or Ubuntu instead for crying out loud, they are made to be user friendly, Slackware is meant to work great and be a solid distro, that doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with user friendliness.

You know I can't recommend SUSE after my last install

[Vogateer]

Eben Moglen is fantastic; I love listening to him speak. Doesn't matter if I don't always agree with him, I believe he's truly on the level, and unlike, say, Noam Chomsky, he seems to legitimately believe and practice what he preaches. I envy his articulacy and wish I could have had him as a professor in college.

[Patrick]

Eben Moglen is fantastic; I love listening to him speak. Doesn't matter if I don't always agree with him...

I like the fact he makes it a point not to interject politics into a discussion or debate. He doesn't have the attitude that he's always right and you're wrong and you must agree with him. Stallman could learn a thing a two from him.

[Tsuroerusu]

But if the kernel that is included is affected and the source code is not it would be very hard to tell because the kernel that is affected is already in binary and having the key to run it wouldn't make it any easier to find it.

That's a good point, but you still have the ability to change it, plus you're explicitly allowed to reverse engineer it if you wanted to.
Also, since you could take the kernel that's running inside the device, and the source code that the company released, you could kind of do a comparison with an OS debugger, that's not something your average busy develop is gonna do, obviously.

Yes because making companies completely change how they work is definately what they want.

Why would the companies have to change how they work? The ones already using Linux or GPLed software just need to not put DRM crap in there if they do currently.

GPLv2 is all about the fact that it is the best license for development

I think you should ask the guy that wrote it about that question, he would tell you that the GPL in general is all about guaranteeing the users' freedom, it's a license written with the users' of computers as it's first priority.

I don't remember misunderstanding it I simply remember you saying "iTunes can still run under Linux" a bunch, I have no log files to look back onto. But it is not Linus' FUD it is his technical view and I do understand the GPLv3.

OK, since you understand the GPLv3, why were you like: ohh DRM will be banished from Linux, we shouldn't force companies to release loose *intellectual property* etc. etc.

I'll say it again, IF you use GPLv3 code in your product, your product obviously has to be GPLv3ed as well (Which you openly admitted that you did not like, essentially meaning that you thought that the BSD, or similar license is better and that it's fair to allow companies to take open source code and make it proprietary, essetially steal free code), and you can't restrict your users to run your specific version, for example if it was under GPLv3, you couldn't take Amarok, use it in a settop music player box, and not allow the users to change the version of Amarok being run.
The type of DRM that the GPLv3 restricts is external DRM that restrict what software can run on a specific device that already runs GPLv3ed code, everyone is focusing on the kernel because they are a big project and are complaining about GPLv3. As I said, I'd like to know what KDE, GNOME (GNOME is part of the GNU project, so that would interesting), Xfce, Amarok, digiKam and other projects have to say on this matter, as the kernel is not the only open source project there is, frankly after having seen how well KDE runs on the BSDs I'd say the Linux kernel is not the most important free software/open source project that exists, I find KDE and GNOME far more important.

You know I can't recommend SUSE after my last install

AFTER ALL THE HELP AND TIPS I GAVE YOU, YOU STILL GOT INTO TROUBLE IN SUSE 10.1???

Sorry about the yelling, but I question your ability (This is not meant to sound harash) to follow instructions if you still got yourself screwed up.

[Wally Balljacker]

AFTER ALL THE HELP AND TIPS I GAVE YOU, YOU STILL GOT INTO TROUBLE IN SUSE 10.1???

Sorry about the yelling, but I question your ability (This is not meant to sound harash) to follow instructions if you still got yourself screwed up.

I hear he runs Gentoo, he doesn't have any problem following pages of instructions!

[CptnObvious999]

Yes because making companies completely change how they work is definately what they want.

Why would the companies have to change how they work? The ones already using Linux or GPLed software just need to not put DRM crap in there if they do currently.

Maybe would should also tell them to give 10% of the profit to the project and maybe we can also put a clause in there that Microsoft can't use any of the code. I am simply saying it's another restriction and depending on the project it could be easier said then done. Your views on DRM are entirely biased (although I doubt you will admit that). You are thinking about iTunes DRM where it is used to lock you in a product. It also serves the purpose of protecting their product. I know I will not change your mind on this and I am sure you will keep blasting me for my views but let me just say that IMHO it's an unneccessary restriction.

GPLv2 is all about the fact that it is the best license for development

I think you should ask the guy that wrote it about that question, he would tell you that the GPL in general is all about guaranteeing the users' freedom, it's a license written with the users' of computers as it's first priority.

And if you ask Linus why he choose the GPL he would say because it is the best license to develop under.

I don't remember misunderstanding it I simply remember you saying "iTunes can still run under Linux" a bunch, I have no log files to look back onto. But it is not Linus' FUD it is his technical view and I do understand the GPLv3.

OK, since you understand the GPLv3, why were you like: ohh DRM will be banished from Linux, we shouldn't force companies to release loose *intellectual property* etc. etc.

I'll say it again, IF you use GPLv3 code in your product, your product obviously has to be GPLv3ed as well (Which you openly admitted that you did not like, essentially meaning that you thought that the BSD, or similar license is better and that it's fair to allow companies to take open source code and make it proprietary, essetially steal free code), and you can't restrict your users to run your specific version, for example if it was under GPLv3, you couldn't take Amarok, use it in a settop music player box, and not allow the users to change the version of Amarok being run.
The type of DRM that the GPLv3 restricts is external DRM that restrict what software can run on a specific device that already runs GPLv3ed code, everyone is focusing on the kernel because they are a big project and are complaining about GPLv3. As I said, I'd like to know what KDE, GNOME (GNOME is part of the GNU project, so that would interesting), Xfce, Amarok, digiKam and other projects have to say on this matter, as the kernel is not the only open source project there is, frankly after having seen how well KDE runs on the BSDs I'd say the Linux kernel is not the most important free software/open source project that exists, I find KDE and GNOME far more important.

Everyone is focused on the Linux kernel because it is such a large project and effects everything unlike KDE and GNOME which mainly only run on desktops and not embedded devices or servers. Also you said that the DRM only applies to hardware which makes it much less controversal.

You know I can't recommend SUSE after my last install

AFTER ALL THE HELP AND TIPS I GAVE YOU, YOU STILL GOT INTO TROUBLE IN SUSE 10.1???

Sorry about the yelling, but I question your ability (This is not meant to sound harash) to follow instructions if you still got yourself screwed up.

There is a problem and that is the directions you gave didn't work. And if you expect me to go around chanting SUSE, SUSE, SUSE like you do after it took me a week to get it working and many many hours of frustration for someone who's been using Linux for over 3 and a half years (and Gentoo, the one that is deemed most advanced) and recomend it to a new user you are sadly mistaken. Even the people on the #suse IRC channel didn't know how to fix most of the problems. Any distrobution that takes over 1 hour to install 3 repos is not exactly the greatest in my oppinion. </rant>

[Judland]

More... on GPLv3 and the issues Linus has to using it.

I think I'm starting to see his point of view a little clearer and would have to agree with his concerns.

[CptnObvious999]

More... on GPLv3 and the issues Linus has to using it.

I think I'm starting to see his point of view a little clearer and would have to agree with his concerns.

Thanks for the find, it's a good overview.

There's another thing that concerns me although I am not sure how true it is. I was told that if a project needs funds to distribute the source code it could charge anything it wants which could be a possible way to lock away the source unless someone is willing to pay $1,000,000 for a copy of the source code. I haven't seen a whole lot about this issue so maybe I was told wrong or the issue was fixed in a later revision.

[Tsuroerusu]

Yes because making companies completely change how they work is definately what they want.

Why would the companies have to change how they work? The ones already using Linux or GPLed software just need to not put DRM crap in there if they do currently.

Maybe would should also tell them to give 10% of the profit to the project

What in the *bleep* world are talking about? If a company is already using GPLed software, GPLv3 will have zero impact on their profit, and frankly if you as a hacker could modify a cellphone with all kinds of Asterisks integration, I think they would sell a lot more, I'm very interested in what Trolltech is up to in this area.

and maybe we can also put a clause in there that Microsoft can't use any of the code.

Time to take up and smell the coffee, they can't already, and idealogically they won't. Microsoft sees the GPL as cancer, plus would not risk having to release the Windows source code, all versions of the GPL would require them to do that.

I am simply saying it's another restriction and depending on the project it could be easier said then done.

You may see it as a restriction, I see it as another way of ensuring that the down to earth end user of software has four essential freedoms that RMS defined over 20 years ago, both technically and spiritually.

Your views on DRM are entirely biased (although I doubt you will admit that). You are thinking about iTunes DRM where it is used to lock you in a product. It also serves the purpose of protecting their product.

I think a lot of about iTunes DRM, but that's not what I think the most about, although I use the example of iTunes the most as that one is reality right now, today.
The thing that concerns me the most, is what Eben Moglen mentioned on FLOSS Weekly #13, that in the future you might only be able to buy DRMed computers, maybe those will only run Windows or OS X, like the TiVo will only run their version of the Linux kernel today.
Linus' arguments are based on today's situation, please allow me to quote him:

I think stopping Tivo is a much bigger problem than Tivo itself ever was.

The key is that he says "was", from his statement I assume he doesn't consider that in the future we could be invaded by DRM everywhere, personally I HIGHLY doubt that HD DVD and BluRay will play on Linux and BSD any time soon.

I know I will not change your mind on this and I am sure you will keep blasting me for my views

Ḯ'm not blasting you, I'm just simple arguing with you because I don't agree with you on X, Y and Z, this is what free speech is for, which is protected under both the US and danish constiutions.

but let me just say that IMHO it's an unneccessary restriction.

At least it's not "digital restrictions management" (I just love that term, very accurate).

And if you ask Linus why he choose the GPL he would say because it is the best license to develop under.

I know that, and I think Linus made a good choice, over say the BSD license.

Everyone is focused on the Linux kernel because it is such a large project and effects everything unlike KDE and GNOME which mainly only run on desktops and not embedded devices or servers.

Fair enough, I can see that, but I'd hope KDE and GNOME are involved in some way with the GPLv3, because like Apache was a decade ago, I think KDE and GNOME is the exciting future of free software.

Also you said that the DRM only applies to hardware which makes it much less controversal.

Yes, the "DRM clause" of the GPLv3, is preventing hardware vendors from using an external meassure to ensure that the kernel that's running is the kernel that they have "blessed", aka signed or done a checksum on. Actually, it's only saying that if they use such meassures, they have to give the user their private key, as a part of the source tarball, so that he can sign his own kernels to run, so they can still use DRM to verify that a user calling for support is actually using their factory kernel, I think it's completely fair for vendors not to provide support for non-factory kernels.
It does not say that Apple, for example, couldn't port iTunes to Linux.
Software DRM is kind of already dealt with in the GPLv2, because if you use GPLv2ed code in a product that uses DRM, that product has to be under GPLv2 as well, so you could just go in and take the DRM right out, so essentially, a DRM system HAS to be proprietary unless it's gonna be pointless.

There is a problem and that is the directions you gave didn't work.

I'd like to kindly ask you, what was that problem?
If it's the package manager, there is a solution: Smart, YUM or apt4rpm.

Shit you could even install NetBSD's pkgsrc.

And if you expect me to go around chanting SUSE, SUSE, SUSE like you do after it took me a week to get it working and many many hours of frustration for someone who's been using Linux for over 3 and a half years (and Gentoo, the one that is deemed most advanced) and recomend it to a new user you are sadly mistaken.

First of all, please see this, as I don't like repeating some things twice.

Also, maybe surprising to you, I don't recommend SUSE Linux 10.1 to new users (10.0 is great for new users, 10.1 is not!), and I don't expect others to do. I only recommended it right after it's release, but when I ran into the issues with the package manager myself, it got an H- and failed "the test" quite misserably. As I said, today I don't recommend SUSE 10.1 to new Linux users, because of the immense process it takes to get around the package management problems.

Even the people on the #suse IRC channel didn't know how to fix most of the problems. Any distrobution that takes over 1 hour to install 3 repos is not exactly the greatest in my oppinion. </rant>

Please allow me to quote myself:

I am in no way afraid of admitting that the distro I talk about all the time and recommend to people, has errors/bugs and things that aren't necessarily working that well. Just as an example, before Novell bought SUSE, YaST was a proprietary component, but luckily Novell was kind enough to release YaST under the GPL, also SUSE's performance has not always been the best, when I switched from 9.2 to 9.3 I noticed that 9.3 was quite sluggish, and finally the package manager in 10.1 has been a disaster, I can't defend that, this ZENworks framework has been so crappy until just recently, that it's almost a disgrace, but as I've stated before, every distro has made at least one release that's not exactly that well put together, for example Mandriva's 2005 version I had some problems with (I'm sure some earlier releases had issues as well), Fedora 1 and 2 was not exactly a gift from heaven either, Kubuntu up until Dapper has been of significantly lower quality (Put it in a kind way) than just standard Ubuntu (Which is why I see the Ubuntu project's KDE support as half-hearted, because Kubuntu is always of less quality than Ubuntu) etc. etc.
So I ask people to at least cut SUSE a little slack, SUSE's past releases may not always have had the best performance but their stability has never had a problem, their releases have always been rock solid, but with not so good performance in too many cases,

More... on GPLv3 and the issues Linus has to using it.

I think I'm starting to see his point of view a little clearer and would have to agree with his concerns.

Thanks for the find, it's a good overview.

There's another thing that concerns me although I am not sure how true it is. I was told that if a project needs funds to distribute the source code it could charge anything it wants which could be a possible way to lock away the source unless someone is willing to pay $1,000,000 for a copy of the source code. I haven't seen a whole lot about this issue so maybe I was told wrong or the issue was fixed in a later revision.

As far as a I know, one of the GPLv3 drafts had some wording that could be interpeted as the example you just gave, that is indeed fixed. Both the users and developers would be against it, and Richard Stallman himself would be against it, because if developers require you to pat a fee to get the sourcecode, a guy who can't afford that, doesn't have free (as in freedom) access to the sourcecode and thereby is unable to modify the program, unless he knows binary code inside and out, because he is being forced to pay an upfront fee, like a proprietary software company would do.

[Judland]

Thanks for the find, it's a good overview.

There's another thing that concerns me although I am not sure how true it is. I was told that if a project needs funds to distribute the source code it could charge anything it wants which could be a possible way to lock away the source unless someone is willing to pay $1,000,000 for a copy of the source code. I haven't seen a whole lot about this issue so maybe I was told wrong or the issue was fixed in a later revision.

The white paper that is linked in the article is also interesting to read. This is the paper that some of the Linux kernel developers put together to voice their concerns with the GPLv3.

[Tsuroerusu]

Thanks for the find, it's a good overview.

There's another thing that concerns me although I am not sure how true it is. I was told that if a project needs funds to distribute the source code it could charge anything it wants which could be a possible way to lock away the source unless someone is willing to pay $1,000,000 for a copy of the source code. I haven't seen a whole lot about this issue so maybe I was told wrong or the issue was fixed in a later revision.

The white paper that is linked in the article is also interesting to read. This is the paper that some of the Linux kernel developers put together to voice their concerns with the GPLv3.

Please do see this: http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification

Because some of the stuff that the kernel developers mention, such as their comments on the patent related stuff in GPLv3:

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.

Is based only false information, misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

Why would the GPLv3 "jeopardize" the patent stash of a company, if only one patent covers a feature in the GPLv3ed program that they distribute, especially since the GPLv3 essentially "only" says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement.