4 ms·

Why have Linus and company not embraced some version of AGPL based on GPLv2? I really don't understand why such a license doesn't exists. It sounds like it'd be

by geokon 5y ago

Why have Linus and company not embraced some version of AGPL based on GPLv2? I really don't understand why such a license doesn't exists. It sounds like it'd be right up their alley. Companies use and modify his code, building their businesses on them, and then are not distributing their changes back. Arguably the whole cloud revolution has been built on this. Better make a SaaS and freeload on other people's work than make client side software and be forced to share your work (and technical advantage)

dwaite 5y ago
It's a question of motivations. Linus likely believes in the benefits of collaborative development, and that the GPLv2 creates a legal framework to allow for that development. However he also likely cares more about the software aspects (getting contributions to make better kernel versions and have them be widely used) than the more philosophical aspects of software freedom. The philosophy on binary drivers for example is one where the Linux kernel does not guarantee a stable binary interface - it isn't that you can't legally distribute a binary driver (with caveats), but he has stated he would like those developers to occasionally "wake up in a cold sweat" over their linux binary drivers breaking on minor releases. Additionally - because of the velocity of the linux kernel, maintaining a substantial vendor fork is not simple. This creates an atmosphere where maintaining functionality outside the mainline kernel could be a technical/financial burden that justifies any IPR release needed for a L-K contribution. The number of contributions also means that such forks are likely not a significant fractional contribution compared to the contributions which people are willing to make in the open. The success of the project no longer depends on enforcement of the publication clauses. Finally, clauses in the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 do influence and even force technology choices. The community likely does not want to lose contributions by pushing people to other kernels, and the commercial interests contributing to Linux would have to account for lost customers. AGPLv3 is often chosen by commercial entities to force distinct commercial licensing of a published-source code base, rather than an effort to protect a community of contributors. As none of the commercial interests in Linux have exclusive copyright assignment to do a non-AGPLv3 license, there is significantly less commercial benefit for them to support such a move.
singpolyma3 5y ago
Linux is only GPL because of a historical quirk. If the Lines of today had been deciding license back then it would be BSD-style
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  No, Torvalds is strongly in favour of the GPLv2. [0][1][2] He's not fond of the GPLv3 though, at least not in the context of kernels. [2][3] [0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relationship-with-the-gpl/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-rela... [1] https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-was-defining-factor-in-linuxs-success.html https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/torvalds-battle-with-gplv3/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/torvalds-battle-with-gplv3/
  - pabs3 5y ago
    What Linus wants is apparently to have people contribute back to Linux mainline, but the GPLv2 license he chose doesn't even have that requirement. So any sharing that does happen is down to culture, not to the license. PS: the requirement to share upstream wouldn't be Free Software, since it would exclude dissidents, people on a desert island etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      > any sharing that does happen is down to culture, not to the license. That's mistaken. If you write Linux kernel code and release it, the GPLv2 obligates you to release your source. That is to say, you do not have the option of releasing only the binary. [0] You have the option of never releasing your work, and you can for instance run a cloud service powered by your modified Linux kernel without having to release your code. [0] (This is how the GPL licences differ from the AGPL licences. [1]) The Linux kernel has benefited enormously from this obligation to share. Torvalds certainly thinks so: [2] > I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back It's true that you aren't obligated to contact the Linux kernel maintainers and suggest they merge your changes, but I don't see that this would be desirable. As you say, such a requirement would be problematic. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedModsAGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedModsAGPL [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relationship-with-the-gpl/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-rela...

by geokon 5y ago

dwaite 5y ago

It's a question of motivations. Linus likely believes in the benefits of collaborative development, and that the GPLv2 creates a legal framework to allow for that development. However he also likely cares more about the software aspects (getting contributions to make better kernel versions and have them be widely used) than the more philosophical aspects of software freedom. The philosophy on binary drivers for example is one where the Linux kernel does not guarantee a stable binary interface - it isn't that you can't legally distribute a binary driver (with caveats), but he has stated he would like those developers to occasionally "wake up in a cold sweat" over their linux binary drivers breaking on minor releases. Additionally - because of the velocity of the linux kernel, maintaining a substantial vendor fork is not simple. This creates an atmosphere where maintaining functionality outside the mainline kernel could be a technical/financial burden that justifies any IPR release needed for a L-K contribution. The number of contributions also means that such forks are likely not a significant fractional contribution compared to the contributions which people are willing to make in the open. The success of the project no longer depends on enforcement of the publication clauses. Finally, clauses in the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 do influence and even force technology choices. The community likely does not want to lose contributions by pushing people to other kernels, and the commercial interests contributing to Linux would have to account for lost customers. AGPLv3 is often chosen by commercial entities to force distinct commercial licensing of a published-source code base, rather than an effort to protect a community of contributors. As none of the commercial interests in Linux have exclusive copyright assignment to do a non-AGPLv3 license, there is significantly less commercial benefit for them to support such a move.

singpolyma3 5y ago

Linux is only GPL because of a historical quirk. If the Lines of today had been deciding license back then it would be BSD-style

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
No, Torvalds is strongly in favour of the GPLv2. [0][1][2] He's not fond of the GPLv3 though, at least not in the context of kernels. [2][3] [0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relationship-with-the-gpl/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-rela... [1] https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-was-defining-factor-in-linuxs-success.html https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/torvalds-battle-with-gplv3/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/torvalds-battle-with-gplv3/
- pabs3 5y ago
  What Linus wants is apparently to have people contribute back to Linux mainline, but the GPLv2 license he chose doesn't even have that requirement. So any sharing that does happen is down to culture, not to the license. PS: the requirement to share upstream wouldn't be Free Software, since it would exclude dissidents, people on a desert island etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    > any sharing that does happen is down to culture, not to the license. That's mistaken. If you write Linux kernel code and release it, the GPLv2 obligates you to release your source. That is to say, you do not have the option of releasing only the binary. [0] You have the option of never releasing your work, and you can for instance run a cloud service powered by your modified Linux kernel without having to release your code. [0] (This is how the GPL licences differ from the AGPL licences. [1]) The Linux kernel has benefited enormously from this obligation to share. Torvalds certainly thinks so: [2] > I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back It's true that you aren't obligated to contact the Linux kernel maintainers and suggest they merge your changes, but I don't see that this would be desirable. As you say, such a requirement would be problematic. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedModsAGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedModsAGPL [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relationship-with-the-gpl/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-rela...