3 ms·

I think his view that the most important part of the license is that it makes the software better is shortsighted. If linux gets used in 95% of all capable hard

I think his view that the most important part of the license is that it makes the software better is shortsighted. If linux gets used in 95% of all capable hardware everywhere, but it's all on locked down hardware by a few companies, what is the point of being open source? Effectively, it's proprietary software which is co-owned by a group of corporations, and the open source is primarily a training program for future employees and phds. Users being able to choose what software they want to run on their devices does matter. Well, he did say it was a fine license (if you care about that). Also, I don't think he gives enough credit to fsf, as almost all other free/open source licenses automatically and always allow later versions, but gpl doesn't. Creative commons is one big example.

avar 12y ago
He doesn't have a problem with the GPLv2 allowing later versions, that's completely reasonable. His problem was that with the GPLv3 they changed the spirit of the license. He thinks a license "upgrade" shouldn't have done that, they should have just released a new license instead. I.e. previously the agreement was "here's my code, if you change it send me the changes", now in addition to that it includes clauses about what you can do with the hardware you run it on. I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? If companies want locked-down hardware they're just going to do lock it down anyway, and just use e.g. FreeBSD instead of Linux and contribute none of their code changes back. Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux?
- rando289 12y ago
  I believe the spirit of the license was not changed. The spirit was spelled out by fsf and rms very well in things like the free software definition, and faqs about the purpose of the license etc. Not disallowing tivoization was an oversight in the legal code which needed to be corrected for the spirit to remain what it had been. Linus thinks the spirit was in the exact legal code. That is more like "the letter of the license", not the spirit. > I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? Is it legal for software to defraud people, to act explicitly for ransom/extortion, or purposely kill people by stopping their medical devices? No. If it was, and it was happening a lot, I bet a copyright license that had something to say about that would be popular. Consumer owned devices which attempt to force people to use specific software for no technical reason, just so they can make more profit from the user, should be illegal outside of any copyright license. Until that happens, then yes gpl is one of the right venues. > Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux? Ya, right now it's that way, especially since they don't do a good job of locking things down and you can circumvent it on most phones. But it's not at all certain it will stay that way.
- belorn 12y ago
  It helps if you read the license before talking about the spirit of the license. In the very first paragraph it says: "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software". If I can't change the software that runs in the device, then I can't change the software. The letter and spirit of the license, ie, to use, share and change software, is fundamental broken if you add restrictions to use, share or change the software. To take an other quote: "you must give the recipients all the rights that you have". Again, letter and spirit is stated directly. If you have rights to use, share, or change things, give that too to the recipient. (all quotes taken from GPLv2 license text - Preamble).
- sethish 12y ago
  > "here's my code, if you change it send me the changes" More like: use my code, if you change it and give someone the changed version, you have to give them the source+changes.

avar 12y ago

He doesn't have a problem with the GPLv2 allowing later versions, that's completely reasonable. His problem was that with the GPLv3 they changed the spirit of the license. He thinks a license "upgrade" shouldn't have done that, they should have just released a new license instead. I.e. previously the agreement was "here's my code, if you change it send me the changes", now in addition to that it includes clauses about what you can do with the hardware you run it on. I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? If companies want locked-down hardware they're just going to do lock it down anyway, and just use e.g. FreeBSD instead of Linux and contribute none of their code changes back. Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux?

rando289 12y ago
I believe the spirit of the license was not changed. The spirit was spelled out by fsf and rms very well in things like the free software definition, and faqs about the purpose of the license etc. Not disallowing tivoization was an oversight in the legal code which needed to be corrected for the spirit to remain what it had been. Linus thinks the spirit was in the exact legal code. That is more like "the letter of the license", not the spirit. > I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? Is it legal for software to defraud people, to act explicitly for ransom/extortion, or purposely kill people by stopping their medical devices? No. If it was, and it was happening a lot, I bet a copyright license that had something to say about that would be popular. Consumer owned devices which attempt to force people to use specific software for no technical reason, just so they can make more profit from the user, should be illegal outside of any copyright license. Until that happens, then yes gpl is one of the right venues. > Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux? Ya, right now it's that way, especially since they don't do a good job of locking things down and you can circumvent it on most phones. But it's not at all certain it will stay that way.
belorn 12y ago
It helps if you read the license before talking about the spirit of the license. In the very first paragraph it says: "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software". If I can't change the software that runs in the device, then I can't change the software. The letter and spirit of the license, ie, to use, share and change software, is fundamental broken if you add restrictions to use, share or change the software. To take an other quote: "you must give the recipients all the rights that you have". Again, letter and spirit is stated directly. If you have rights to use, share, or change things, give that too to the recipient. (all quotes taken from GPLv2 license text - Preamble).
sethish 12y ago
> "here's my code, if you change it send me the changes" More like: use my code, if you change it and give someone the changed version, you have to give them the source+changes.