4 ms·

> The FSF made a huge effort to make GPLv3 not scary. If they were serious about that effort, the metric would have been a simple boolean: "Will the Linux kern

> The FSF made a huge effort to make GPLv3 not scary. If they were serious about that effort, the metric would have been a simple boolean: "Will the Linux kernel make the switch?" That's got to be your most visible, most well-funded GPLv2 project in existence. If no (and it was a resounding no according to Linus' very public rant at a Debconf a few years back) then the license would almost by definition appear to be "scary" from the outset. The only exception would be some very rare edge case in Linux that makes it impossible to switch. In reality-- again, at least according to Linus-- it was a complete breakdown in trust between a holder of the old license and the organization writing the new one. I don't know the intricate details, but it's clearly a bigger problem than "large companies" spreading FUD. Edit: clarification

ndesaulniers 6y ago
> it was a resounding no according to Linus' very public rant at a Debconf a few years back This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU&t=241 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU&t=241
- jancsika 6y ago
  Yes, thanks for the link. Digression-- I'm sure the FSF doesn't appreciate it, but there is something very disarming about Linus ending his rant calling the entire FSF "bigoted people," and then immediately following it with, "I may have overstated that a bit." It's a very unprofessional and risky way to joke around, especially after making the accusations he made minutes before. But the fact that you can hear how the room laughs and carries on after he essentially calls himself a "drama queen" tells you that pretty much everyone understood the upshot (whether or not they appreciated the joke). That makes me think that of how rotten online communication is. In person, a maintainer of one of the biggest open source projects can call an entire organization one of the worst insults, and probably none of the members of that organization in attendance even considered interrupting him. Yet HN needs a "cool down" period to keep participants arguing about semicolons from throwing their device at the wall. Edit: typo
sam_bristow 6y ago
The fact that the Linux kernel removed the "or later version" from the licence and doesn't do copyright assignment make it impossible to switch to anything other than GPLv2. You'd need to get every single person who'd contributed to agree. Even if they're dead.
- chithanh 6y ago
  It's not that insurmountable. Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. So yes, it will probably take too much time and effort and give too little benefit to be practical, but impossible? No. > Even if they're dead. If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    > Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. That's not really true, and if code is being modified rather than completely replaced it is probably a derivative work of the original code (meaning the license is still GPLv2). The only practical way to make sure the license change is legitimate is to get permission from every single copyright holder. > Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. And some of those companies may have gone bankrupt or been dissolved which puts you in a similar situation to a contributor who has died, except it may be even harder to figure out who exactly owns the copyrights. > If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked. Even if you figure out who owns the copyrights, do you really think you'll be able to convince every single bereaved spouse, sibling, or child to "relicense your dearly departed [father/mother/wife/husband/brother/sister]'s contributions to Linux to GPLv3"? I envy your optimism.
- jancsika 6y ago
  That's a good point. But then it immediately brings up the question: if that's the case, why would the FSF have been in communication with the Linux kernel peeps with regard to license compatibility and potential upgrade? I can understand getting input from them on the upcoming GPLv3, but not an effort trying to convince them to adopt it.
cyphar 6y ago
It was never going to be possible for Linux to switch, so it's honestly a bit of a moot point. By 2007, the overwhelming majority of copyrights were not held by Linus and lots of the code was already licensed as GPLv2-only (not to mention that tracking down copyright holders pre-Git would've been basically impossible -- and that's before you start worrying about bankrupt companies or people who've passed away). Switching licenses is incredibly hard, and in my view it was a mistake to make GPL upgrades opt-in (they should've been opt-out as is the case with the Mozilla Public License). I also broadly disagree with the argument that if the Linux community (or in this case, Linus) is against something then it is not a reasonable thing to put in the GPL. A reminder that the official policy of the Linux Foundation and lead maintainers is to avoid GPL enforcement at all costs[+] -- meaning that by this reasoning, the GPLv2 having any enforcement provisions at all is "too scary". [+] GregKH has spoken on this quite a few times. I don't disagree with their view that enforcement reduces the chance of recurring contributions (which is what they actually care about), but it does mean that Linux's usage of the GPLv2 is more akin to MIT but with some extra public shaming if a company doesn't provide sources.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  The LLVM relicense shows that it is actually possible for a large project with distributed ownership to switch licenses given there is enough motivation to do so. From what I understand as a non-lawyer, situations with this old code where the copyright owners can't be tracked down is undesirable for a number of reasons and they may need to rectify that eventually anyway. (I believe it can be seen as a liability)
- jancsika 6y ago
  > It was never going to be possible for Linux to switch, so it's honestly a bit of a moot point. It wasn't moot because: * the FSF apparently attempted to convince Linux devs that the GPLv3 could be compatible with Linus' intended use of GPLv2 * Linus has publicly claimed they were mendacious in his communication with them That's not a great starting point for adoption of a new license. And while I'm sure there was also plenty of self-serving FUD coming from companies about the GPLv3, this ain't that.
cycloptic 6y ago
FWIW the situation is not quite as bad as Linus implies. He may personally dislike GPL3 but that doesn't appear to reflect the opinions of the entire project. A license analysis of the current mainline Linux source shows that roughly 30%-40% files in the kernel are already GPL3 compatible because they're either licensed as GPL-2.0-or-later or dual licensed as MIT or BSD. (I don't have exact statistics on this, it's a rough estimate from a non-exhaustive SPDX audit. You can reproduce by simply grepping through the source for license identifiers) This can happen because individual kernel developers can contribute using whatever license they like as long as it's compatible with GPL2 for a binary distribution. Additionally, Linus and several other kernel developers did decide to adopt the termination provisions from GPL3 not too long ago [0]. Based on this, I don't think it's accurate to say that the kernel developers are currently opposed on the whole to GPL3, or at least to some of the ideas in it anyway. If the stance of some developers was "we'll upgrade the license if you remove all the extra provisions except the termination ones" then it seems obvious why that is a no-go from the perspective of everyone else. [0]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/kernel-enforc...
- jancsika 6y ago
  To be clear-- I didn't get the sense from Linus' rant that he's opposed to GPLv3 at all. His beef seemed to be with a discussion with the FSF about compatibility of licenses. From what I gathered from the rant: * Linus made clear to the FSF that he wanted a license for the Linux kernel that did not include the anti-tivoization clause. His desire as I understand it is that his project gives a licensee the code, they give back changes to the code, and that is as far as he wants the license to go. GPLv2 is a perfect fit for that. (Aside from whatever legal desiderata is required for such a license to be practical/sensible in the first place to achieve this, and I'm assuming that's what those two clauses you quoted are about.) * Linus claims the FSF told him he could "invalidate the tivoization clause" as a solution to his stated goals. But, according to Linus, that would create a mess since someone could fork and write drivers under the full GPLv3 (which is compatible with the version that doesn't contain the tivoization clause), and as Linus states, "Where does that leave me?" He could end up in situations Linux is unable to accept the changes without asking the driver writer to re-license the thing under GPLv3-minus-tivoization for upstream inclusion. (Furthermore, the more popular GPLv3 becomes, the worse this problem would get!) But his whole purpose in GPLv2 was to make a simple "code-goes-out-and-changes-come-back-in" deal with other developers, end of story. So that clearly doesn't fit his use case. * His central claim isn't that GPLv3 is bad, or even that GPLv3 doesn't fit his needs. Rather, he claims that FSF misrepresented the license and its compatibility with the GPLv2 in their discussion with him behind closed doors. Of course that's just his allegation, and I haven't seen an email chain to confirm anything. But that allegation alone is enough to call into question the idea that the history of GPLv3 adoption is only scary due to FUD from companies.

ndesaulniers 6y ago

> it was a resounding no according to Linus' very public rant at a Debconf a few years back This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU&t=241 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU&t=241

jancsika 6y ago
Yes, thanks for the link. Digression-- I'm sure the FSF doesn't appreciate it, but there is something very disarming about Linus ending his rant calling the entire FSF "bigoted people," and then immediately following it with, "I may have overstated that a bit." It's a very unprofessional and risky way to joke around, especially after making the accusations he made minutes before. But the fact that you can hear how the room laughs and carries on after he essentially calls himself a "drama queen" tells you that pretty much everyone understood the upshot (whether or not they appreciated the joke). That makes me think that of how rotten online communication is. In person, a maintainer of one of the biggest open source projects can call an entire organization one of the worst insults, and probably none of the members of that organization in attendance even considered interrupting him. Yet HN needs a "cool down" period to keep participants arguing about semicolons from throwing their device at the wall. Edit: typo

sam_bristow 6y ago

The fact that the Linux kernel removed the "or later version" from the licence and doesn't do copyright assignment make it impossible to switch to anything other than GPLv2. You'd need to get every single person who'd contributed to agree. Even if they're dead.

chithanh 6y ago
It's not that insurmountable. Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. So yes, it will probably take too much time and effort and give too little benefit to be practical, but impossible? No. > Even if they're dead. If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked.
- cyphar 6y ago
  > Each release, large parts of the kernel get rewritten anyway. That's not really true, and if code is being modified rather than completely replaced it is probably a derivative work of the original code (meaning the license is still GPLv2). The only practical way to make sure the license change is legitimate is to get permission from every single copyright holder. > Lots of kernel code is copyrighted by companies now. And some of those companies may have gone bankrupt or been dissolved which puts you in a similar situation to a contributor who has died, except it may be even harder to figure out who exactly owns the copyrights. > If they are dead, their copyrights are held by someone else now who can be asked. Even if you figure out who owns the copyrights, do you really think you'll be able to convince every single bereaved spouse, sibling, or child to "relicense your dearly departed [father/mother/wife/husband/brother/sister]'s contributions to Linux to GPLv3"? I envy your optimism.
jancsika 6y ago
That's a good point. But then it immediately brings up the question: if that's the case, why would the FSF have been in communication with the Linux kernel peeps with regard to license compatibility and potential upgrade? I can understand getting input from them on the upcoming GPLv3, but not an effort trying to convince them to adopt it.

cyphar 6y ago

It was never going to be possible for Linux to switch, so it's honestly a bit of a moot point. By 2007, the overwhelming majority of copyrights were not held by Linus and lots of the code was already licensed as GPLv2-only (not to mention that tracking down copyright holders pre-Git would've been basically impossible -- and that's before you start worrying about bankrupt companies or people who've passed away). Switching licenses is incredibly hard, and in my view it was a mistake to make GPL upgrades opt-in (they should've been opt-out as is the case with the Mozilla Public License). I also broadly disagree with the argument that if the Linux community (or in this case, Linus) is against something then it is not a reasonable thing to put in the GPL. A reminder that the official policy of the Linux Foundation and lead maintainers is to avoid GPL enforcement at all costs[+] -- meaning that by this reasoning, the GPLv2 having any enforcement provisions at all is "too scary". [+] GregKH has spoken on this quite a few times. I don't disagree with their view that enforcement reduces the chance of recurring contributions (which is what they actually care about), but it does mean that Linux's usage of the GPLv2 is more akin to MIT but with some extra public shaming if a company doesn't provide sources.

cycloptic 6y ago
The LLVM relicense shows that it is actually possible for a large project with distributed ownership to switch licenses given there is enough motivation to do so. From what I understand as a non-lawyer, situations with this old code where the copyright owners can't be tracked down is undesirable for a number of reasons and they may need to rectify that eventually anyway. (I believe it can be seen as a liability)
jancsika 6y ago
> It was never going to be possible for Linux to switch, so it's honestly a bit of a moot point. It wasn't moot because: * the FSF apparently attempted to convince Linux devs that the GPLv3 could be compatible with Linus' intended use of GPLv2 * Linus has publicly claimed they were mendacious in his communication with them That's not a great starting point for adoption of a new license. And while I'm sure there was also plenty of self-serving FUD coming from companies about the GPLv3, this ain't that.

cycloptic 6y ago

FWIW the situation is not quite as bad as Linus implies. He may personally dislike GPL3 but that doesn't appear to reflect the opinions of the entire project. A license analysis of the current mainline Linux source shows that roughly 30%-40% files in the kernel are already GPL3 compatible because they're either licensed as GPL-2.0-or-later or dual licensed as MIT or BSD. (I don't have exact statistics on this, it's a rough estimate from a non-exhaustive SPDX audit. You can reproduce by simply grepping through the source for license identifiers) This can happen because individual kernel developers can contribute using whatever license they like as long as it's compatible with GPL2 for a binary distribution. Additionally, Linus and several other kernel developers did decide to adopt the termination provisions from GPL3 not too long ago [0]. Based on this, I don't think it's accurate to say that the kernel developers are currently opposed on the whole to GPL3, or at least to some of the ideas in it anyway. If the stance of some developers was "we'll upgrade the license if you remove all the extra provisions except the termination ones" then it seems obvious why that is a no-go from the perspective of everyone else. [0]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/kernel-enforc...

jancsika 6y ago
To be clear-- I didn't get the sense from Linus' rant that he's opposed to GPLv3 at all. His beef seemed to be with a discussion with the FSF about compatibility of licenses. From what I gathered from the rant: * Linus made clear to the FSF that he wanted a license for the Linux kernel that did not include the anti-tivoization clause. His desire as I understand it is that his project gives a licensee the code, they give back changes to the code, and that is as far as he wants the license to go. GPLv2 is a perfect fit for that. (Aside from whatever legal desiderata is required for such a license to be practical/sensible in the first place to achieve this, and I'm assuming that's what those two clauses you quoted are about.) * Linus claims the FSF told him he could "invalidate the tivoization clause" as a solution to his stated goals. But, according to Linus, that would create a mess since someone could fork and write drivers under the full GPLv3 (which is compatible with the version that doesn't contain the tivoization clause), and as Linus states, "Where does that leave me?" He could end up in situations Linux is unable to accept the changes without asking the driver writer to re-license the thing under GPLv3-minus-tivoization for upstream inclusion. (Furthermore, the more popular GPLv3 becomes, the worse this problem would get!) But his whole purpose in GPLv2 was to make a simple "code-goes-out-and-changes-come-back-in" deal with other developers, end of story. So that clearly doesn't fit his use case. * His central claim isn't that GPLv3 is bad, or even that GPLv3 doesn't fit his needs. Rather, he claims that FSF misrepresented the license and its compatibility with the GPLv2 in their discussion with him behind closed doors. Of course that's just his allegation, and I haven't seen an email chain to confirm anything. But that allegation alone is enough to call into question the idea that the history of GPLv3 adoption is only scary due to FUD from companies.