3 ms·

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...
    - pabs3 5y ago
      The GPL does not require to release the source publicly, only to the same people you distribute binaries to. This is not an obligation to share back to the project itself. Therefore the sharing back that does happen is down to culture not to the license.
      - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        > The GPL does not require to release the source publicly, only to the same people you distribute binaries to. You're emphasising the distinction between making GPL'ed source-code available to your customers specifically, and making it available publicly online. In practice there is little difference. Few companies bother hoping no customer will post the source publicly (which the customers are permitted to do under the GPL). In practical terms the decision is between not releasing, or releasing to the public including the source-code. In a world where the Internet didn't make distribution of software trivially easy, things might be different. Of course, there are some notable exceptions, the most prominent being nVidia's probably-non-compliant proprietary graphics driver. A fair bit has been written about that. > Therefore the sharing back that does happen is down to culture not to the license. No, Torvalds has it right. Proprietary freeware kernel modules are forbidden outright, as you are not permitted to publicly release the binary without also releasing the source. As I described, 'contained' distribution of source-code isn't a practical option. The decision of what to merge into the mainline kernel is of course up to the kernel developers. There's no other way it could be.

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...
  - pabs3 5y ago
    The GPL does not require to release the source publicly, only to the same people you distribute binaries to. This is not an obligation to share back to the project itself. Therefore the sharing back that does happen is down to culture not to the license.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      > The GPL does not require to release the source publicly, only to the same people you distribute binaries to. You're emphasising the distinction between making GPL'ed source-code available to your customers specifically, and making it available publicly online. In practice there is little difference. Few companies bother hoping no customer will post the source publicly (which the customers are permitted to do under the GPL). In practical terms the decision is between not releasing, or releasing to the public including the source-code. In a world where the Internet didn't make distribution of software trivially easy, things might be different. Of course, there are some notable exceptions, the most prominent being nVidia's probably-non-compliant proprietary graphics driver. A fair bit has been written about that. > Therefore the sharing back that does happen is down to culture not to the license. No, Torvalds has it right. Proprietary freeware kernel modules are forbidden outright, as you are not permitted to publicly release the binary without also releasing the source. As I described, 'contained' distribution of source-code isn't a practical option. The decision of what to merge into the mainline kernel is of course up to the kernel developers. There's no other way it could be.