3 ms·

> This echoes of the kind of v3 fuckery Linus Torvalds complained about in his GPLv3 objection recorded at DebConf '14. I feel like this is another topic. What

by jraph 5y ago

> This echoes of the kind of v3 fuckery Linus Torvalds complained about in his GPLv3 objection recorded at DebConf '14. I feel like this is another topic. What Linus is criticizing in the part you cite is the "or later" mechanism, where as a licensee you can take some program licensed under "License version N or later" and release a modification under "version N+1 only", preventing the original authors to take back the modifications. I understand (and sympathize with) the intent of the "or later" mechanism, and why Linus does not like it (and agree with him). He also thinks the FSF wrongly took advantage of the "or later" clause by releasing a new version of the GPL that is not in the same spirit and he thinks that this is sneaky. One can agree or not. This "or later" mechanism seems like it would hold in court, contrary to the discussed clause (deemed invalid here) that prevents an author from adding a restrictive clause next to the base license. Hindsight is 20/20, but it does seem like the authors of the AGPL could have anticipated this court decision [that author have all the rights to impose all further restrictions they want withing copyright laws and license authors cannot do anything about it] and don't put this clause, or just clearly write that licensees cannot add further restrictions to the original license. I would not put the two points in the same bag.

pengaru 5y ago
> I feel like this is another topic. What Linus is criticizing in the part you cite is the "or later" mechanism The "or later" mechanism was always there, this facet was old news, it's not the substance of what he's taking issue with in v3. He's just appreciative of having the presence of mind to fix his kernel at v2 and not leave the v2+ option, because v3 is terrible. Listen to the entire clip I linked. He's complaining about tivoization restrictions, he's complaining about the dishonesty surrounding the freedom to ignore those restrictions. This is the same kind of v3 nonsense as TFA, is it not?
- jraph 5y ago
  I'm familiar with this clip and listened to it several times. He doesn't like the GPLv3 for the reasons you give, and from what I understand, what he finds sneaky is not the GPLv3 itself (he recognizes that the GPLv3 can suit some people and is fine with this), but the fact that the GPLv3 has been written as a revision of the GPLv2 while it should have been an entirely new license (that would not interact with the "or later" mechanism and impact existing software with this or later clause). He says this in the sentence just before your citation. From what I understand, he would have been fine with a revision to the GPLv2 that fixes some issues but does not change its spirit. Now, that the GPLv3 is not in the same spirit than the GPLv2 is an opinion, and he does a good job of arguing his opinion on the matter. > This is the same kind of v3 nonsense as TFA, is it not? No, I don't think so. edit: oh, ok, I understand what you mean. The nonsense you are speaking about is the FSF people telling Linus Torvalds that he can use GPLv3 without the tivoisation clause and still be compatible with the GPLv3, which indeed seems non nonsensical. The GPLv3 itself is not sneaky though, it's how it was sold to Linus IIUC.
  - ms4720 5y ago
    Having the Linux kernel as part of the GPL/FSF brand is critical marketing for the FSF. Linux is the thing that is the GPL in most people's minds in business and tech. They know that and are willing to break their own rules to keep it.
rbanffy 5y ago
> that author have all the rights to impose all further restrictions they want But, then, why did they distribute it under a license that directly conflicts with that? The authors have sent two conflicting messages: that you can remove additional restrictions and that you are bound by them. How is the user supposed to act when given permission by the authors to do something the authors prohibit?
- jraph 5y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, as an author I would not have risked something like this, but let me try: - maybe the authors wanted the "AGPLv3 look it's open source!" label - maybe the authors liked the restrictions that come with AGPLv3 (if you use a modified version on a server, we want the modified source code "back") - maybe the authors wanted to built upon a license they perceive as strong and solid - maybe the authors haven't thoroughly checked the AGPLv3 and weren't aware of this particular clause, or actually decided they could add limitations anyway - writing a license is hard so maybe they didn't want to roll their own I personally think the Commons Clause license is a bad thing with a bad name, and is only going to wreck havoc and muddy the waters. Widespread open source / free software licenses are complete, self-contained work and internally coherent, adding stuff on top of them is only going to be fragile.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > - maybe the authors liked the restrictions that come with AGPLv3 (if you use a modified version on a server, we want the modified source code "back") It's not a restriction, and it's not about the upstream author: the modifications are available to every user (so they can be sure what is done with their data, as one example). As any GPL, this is about user rights, not developer rights. > - maybe the authors haven't thoroughly checked the AGPLv3 and weren't aware of this particular clause, or actually decided they could add limitations anyway I'm betting on this one. AGPL makes sense if you want to force anyone using your software to release their enhancements to their users. You, as the original author, retain the right to license it under a different license to your own users (so they don't get the exact source code to the services they are using remotely). Picking a license is hard and should be done carefully, because the license you pick can have permanent effects on what you can do with your own software. Larry Ellison, for instance, didn't realize he just couldn't kill MySQL just because he became its owner when he acquired Sun.

by jraph 5y ago

pengaru 5y ago

> I feel like this is another topic. What Linus is criticizing in the part you cite is the "or later" mechanism The "or later" mechanism was always there, this facet was old news, it's not the substance of what he's taking issue with in v3. He's just appreciative of having the presence of mind to fix his kernel at v2 and not leave the v2+ option, because v3 is terrible. Listen to the entire clip I linked. He's complaining about tivoization restrictions, he's complaining about the dishonesty surrounding the freedom to ignore those restrictions. This is the same kind of v3 nonsense as TFA, is it not?

jraph 5y ago
I'm familiar with this clip and listened to it several times. He doesn't like the GPLv3 for the reasons you give, and from what I understand, what he finds sneaky is not the GPLv3 itself (he recognizes that the GPLv3 can suit some people and is fine with this), but the fact that the GPLv3 has been written as a revision of the GPLv2 while it should have been an entirely new license (that would not interact with the "or later" mechanism and impact existing software with this or later clause). He says this in the sentence just before your citation. From what I understand, he would have been fine with a revision to the GPLv2 that fixes some issues but does not change its spirit. Now, that the GPLv3 is not in the same spirit than the GPLv2 is an opinion, and he does a good job of arguing his opinion on the matter. > This is the same kind of v3 nonsense as TFA, is it not? No, I don't think so. edit: oh, ok, I understand what you mean. The nonsense you are speaking about is the FSF people telling Linus Torvalds that he can use GPLv3 without the tivoisation clause and still be compatible with the GPLv3, which indeed seems non nonsensical. The GPLv3 itself is not sneaky though, it's how it was sold to Linus IIUC.
- ms4720 5y ago
  Having the Linux kernel as part of the GPL/FSF brand is critical marketing for the FSF. Linux is the thing that is the GPL in most people's minds in business and tech. They know that and are willing to break their own rules to keep it.

rbanffy 5y ago

> that author have all the rights to impose all further restrictions they want But, then, why did they distribute it under a license that directly conflicts with that? The authors have sent two conflicting messages: that you can remove additional restrictions and that you are bound by them. How is the user supposed to act when given permission by the authors to do something the authors prohibit?

jraph 5y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you, as an author I would not have risked something like this, but let me try: - maybe the authors wanted the "AGPLv3 look it's open source!" label - maybe the authors liked the restrictions that come with AGPLv3 (if you use a modified version on a server, we want the modified source code "back") - maybe the authors wanted to built upon a license they perceive as strong and solid - maybe the authors haven't thoroughly checked the AGPLv3 and weren't aware of this particular clause, or actually decided they could add limitations anyway - writing a license is hard so maybe they didn't want to roll their own I personally think the Commons Clause license is a bad thing with a bad name, and is only going to wreck havoc and muddy the waters. Widespread open source / free software licenses are complete, self-contained work and internally coherent, adding stuff on top of them is only going to be fragile.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > - maybe the authors liked the restrictions that come with AGPLv3 (if you use a modified version on a server, we want the modified source code "back") It's not a restriction, and it's not about the upstream author: the modifications are available to every user (so they can be sure what is done with their data, as one example). As any GPL, this is about user rights, not developer rights. > - maybe the authors haven't thoroughly checked the AGPLv3 and weren't aware of this particular clause, or actually decided they could add limitations anyway I'm betting on this one. AGPL makes sense if you want to force anyone using your software to release their enhancements to their users. You, as the original author, retain the right to license it under a different license to your own users (so they don't get the exact source code to the services they are using remotely). Picking a license is hard and should be done carefully, because the license you pick can have permanent effects on what you can do with your own software. Larry Ellison, for instance, didn't realize he just couldn't kill MySQL just because he became its owner when he acquired Sun.