8 ms·

Alternate title: doubling down on not just doing the right thing and using GPLv3.

by yarrel 9y ago

__s 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU Torvalds on GPLv2 vs GPLv3
- mempko 9y ago
  I found his arguments either dishonest or ignorant. He basically said "Look, I don't have an ideology to push, I chose the license because it served MY needs, FSF is pushing an ideology is GPLv3 and I don't like that.". However, he certainly has an ideology which I call "The roman conception of freedom". It is favored by laze-faire free market types. This is not an "ideology-free" argument. He is pushing an ideology just as much as the FSF is. At least the FSF is honest and clear about what that ideology is.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    Torvalds has always been very upfront that he doesn't care about software freedom. Note that choice of words very carefully: not "opposes" but "doesn't care about", one way or the other. He has said from the beginning that the choice of GPL for Linux was a technical one that he thinks produces the best code, and that the GPLv3 offered no technical gains and thus wasn't worth switching to. Presumably if he thought switching to a different license altogether produced better code, he'd do that. Is not having an opinion on software freedom an ideology? I don't have an opinion on most political questions in, say, Mongolia. Does that give me a particular ideology on whatever political spectrum Mongolia has?
    - Phrodo_00 9y ago
      Also, Linux code is owned by whoever wrote it (or paid to have it written I guess), so it'd a major effort to try and change its license.
      - TrashMacNugget 9y ago
        True, but Linux originally used the GPLv2, but IIRC never said anywhere whether it was GPLv2-only or GPLv2 or any later version, or just "GPL". According to the GPL, that means: > If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. So Linux could've theoretically upgraded to the GPLv3 (or GPLv2+). However, Linus didn't like that idea, and in 2006 edited the COPYING file to say that it was GPLv2-only. If you really wanted to, you could take the 2006 source code and make a GPLv3 fork of Linux.
        kelnos 9y ago
        > If you really wanted to, you could take the 2006 source code and make a GPLv3 fork of Linux. You certainly theoretically could, but maintaining, updating, and modernizing such a beast would be out of the reach of most people and organizations. 11 years of progress can't be replicated so quickly, especially when you consider you'd need to do it in a clean-room sort of fashion to be entirely aboveboard, which means many people who are already well familiar with the Linux kernel couldn't even work on it. At any rate, I think your estimate of the timing is off: I found references to the "GPLv2-only" language in the kernel's COPYING file as far back as linux-2.4.0-test8, which was released sometime in 2000, and I didn't really try to go farther back.
    - leoc 9y ago
      When you are effectively governing a large chunk of Mongolia, then yes.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    Isn't the question whether he is obliged to change license? It's not pushing ideology to sit on the license you are using.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    He's not arguing that the FSF shouldn't push an ideology. Nor is he arguing that he doesn't have an ideology-- he states it clearly in the video regarding his understanding of the GPLv2-- "I give you the source code, you give me back your changes, and we're even." He is making a claim that FSF tried to persuade him that the GPLv3 would satisfy Linus' ideology under the reasoning that it allows him to invalidate the tivoization clause. Here's a quote from Linus from that video: "Yes the GPLv3 allows you to say tivoization is not an issue for us. But it allows somebody else to take the project and say, hey, the GPLv3 without tivoization is compatible with the full GPLv3. So I will make my own fork of this and I will start doing drivers that use the full version 3. And where am I stuck then? I'm stuck saying, hey, I gave you the source code and now I can't take it back (your changes). That's completely against the whole point of the license in the first place." Basically Linus' only requirements-- "use and give back"-- are a subset of the FSF's requirements-- "use, give back and don't lock down." Linus is accusing the FSF of claiming that the GPLv3 could do a fine job supporting Linus' requirements when in reality it doesn't protect his software from gaining additional requirements which he explicitly stated he didn't want added. And what would protect his software from that? The very license that they were persuading him to change-- GPLv2. In other words, he's accusing some unnamed representative(s) of the FSF of lying to suit their own ends. That's rather hard to believe IMO, as I've never read or heard anything from the FSF that is purposely deceitful in this manner. Additionally, I haven't read statements from Linus that are purposely deceitful, either. I can only surmise that a tiny amount of doctrinal difference collided with enormous egos to create a pathetic waste of time, energy, and goodwill.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > That's rather hard to believe IMO, as I've never read or heard anything from the FSF that is purposely deceitful in this manner. The FSF has claimed that several licenses that have requirements not present in GPLv2 are compatible with GPLv2; the FSF is very aggressive in pushing the use of their license and their bias for such use definitely colors their representation of facts.
      - jancsika 9y ago
        But do you have any evidence of a developer telling them, "I don't want the additional requirements GPLv3 would bring," and the FSF replying, "That's fine, you can just use GPLv3 without the such-and-such clause"? Aggressively pushing the GPLv3 and misrepresenting its efficacy to GPLv2 fans are two completely different things.
  - asveikau 9y ago
    The copyright for Linux (the kernel) is not held by a small number of people or organizations. There are many contributors with copyright notices all over the tree. I don't think he could relicense if he wanted.

Alternate title: doubling down on not just doing the right thing and using GPLv3.

by yarrel 9y ago

Alternate title: doubling down on not just doing the right thing and using GPLv3.

__s 9y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU Torvalds on GPLv2 vs GPLv3

mempko 9y ago
I found his arguments either dishonest or ignorant. He basically said "Look, I don't have an ideology to push, I chose the license because it served MY needs, FSF is pushing an ideology is GPLv3 and I don't like that.". However, he certainly has an ideology which I call "The roman conception of freedom". It is favored by laze-faire free market types. This is not an "ideology-free" argument. He is pushing an ideology just as much as the FSF is. At least the FSF is honest and clear about what that ideology is.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Torvalds has always been very upfront that he doesn't care about software freedom. Note that choice of words very carefully: not "opposes" but "doesn't care about", one way or the other. He has said from the beginning that the choice of GPL for Linux was a technical one that he thinks produces the best code, and that the GPLv3 offered no technical gains and thus wasn't worth switching to. Presumably if he thought switching to a different license altogether produced better code, he'd do that. Is not having an opinion on software freedom an ideology? I don't have an opinion on most political questions in, say, Mongolia. Does that give me a particular ideology on whatever political spectrum Mongolia has?
  - Phrodo_00 9y ago
    Also, Linux code is owned by whoever wrote it (or paid to have it written I guess), so it'd a major effort to try and change its license.
    - TrashMacNugget 9y ago
      True, but Linux originally used the GPLv2, but IIRC never said anywhere whether it was GPLv2-only or GPLv2 or any later version, or just "GPL". According to the GPL, that means: > If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. So Linux could've theoretically upgraded to the GPLv3 (or GPLv2+). However, Linus didn't like that idea, and in 2006 edited the COPYING file to say that it was GPLv2-only. If you really wanted to, you could take the 2006 source code and make a GPLv3 fork of Linux.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        > If you really wanted to, you could take the 2006 source code and make a GPLv3 fork of Linux. You certainly theoretically could, but maintaining, updating, and modernizing such a beast would be out of the reach of most people and organizations. 11 years of progress can't be replicated so quickly, especially when you consider you'd need to do it in a clean-room sort of fashion to be entirely aboveboard, which means many people who are already well familiar with the Linux kernel couldn't even work on it. At any rate, I think your estimate of the timing is off: I found references to the "GPLv2-only" language in the kernel's COPYING file as far back as linux-2.4.0-test8, which was released sometime in 2000, and I didn't really try to go farther back.
  - leoc 9y ago
    When you are effectively governing a large chunk of Mongolia, then yes.
- ygaf 9y ago
  Isn't the question whether he is obliged to change license? It's not pushing ideology to sit on the license you are using.
- jancsika 9y ago
  He's not arguing that the FSF shouldn't push an ideology. Nor is he arguing that he doesn't have an ideology-- he states it clearly in the video regarding his understanding of the GPLv2-- "I give you the source code, you give me back your changes, and we're even." He is making a claim that FSF tried to persuade him that the GPLv3 would satisfy Linus' ideology under the reasoning that it allows him to invalidate the tivoization clause. Here's a quote from Linus from that video: "Yes the GPLv3 allows you to say tivoization is not an issue for us. But it allows somebody else to take the project and say, hey, the GPLv3 without tivoization is compatible with the full GPLv3. So I will make my own fork of this and I will start doing drivers that use the full version 3. And where am I stuck then? I'm stuck saying, hey, I gave you the source code and now I can't take it back (your changes). That's completely against the whole point of the license in the first place." Basically Linus' only requirements-- "use and give back"-- are a subset of the FSF's requirements-- "use, give back and don't lock down." Linus is accusing the FSF of claiming that the GPLv3 could do a fine job supporting Linus' requirements when in reality it doesn't protect his software from gaining additional requirements which he explicitly stated he didn't want added. And what would protect his software from that? The very license that they were persuading him to change-- GPLv2. In other words, he's accusing some unnamed representative(s) of the FSF of lying to suit their own ends. That's rather hard to believe IMO, as I've never read or heard anything from the FSF that is purposely deceitful in this manner. Additionally, I haven't read statements from Linus that are purposely deceitful, either. I can only surmise that a tiny amount of doctrinal difference collided with enormous egos to create a pathetic waste of time, energy, and goodwill.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > That's rather hard to believe IMO, as I've never read or heard anything from the FSF that is purposely deceitful in this manner. The FSF has claimed that several licenses that have requirements not present in GPLv2 are compatible with GPLv2; the FSF is very aggressive in pushing the use of their license and their bias for such use definitely colors their representation of facts.
    - jancsika 9y ago
      But do you have any evidence of a developer telling them, "I don't want the additional requirements GPLv3 would bring," and the FSF replying, "That's fine, you can just use GPLv3 without the such-and-such clause"? Aggressively pushing the GPLv3 and misrepresenting its efficacy to GPLv2 fans are two completely different things.
- asveikau 9y ago
  The copyright for Linux (the kernel) is not held by a small number of people or organizations. There are many contributors with copyright notices all over the tree. I don't think he could relicense if he wanted.