Comments on: What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/ Ramblings on law school in New York, free software, and the spaces in between. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:58:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: DLFP: Controverses autour de la version 3 de la licence GPL http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-27393 DLFP: Controverses autour de la version 3 de la licence GPL Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:06:14 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-27393 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] son combat sur ce sujet. Plus intéressant, le point de vue de Luis Villa sur l'affaire : http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-a(...) http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-w(...) What the kernel guys really seem [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback[...] son combat sur ce sujet. Plus intéressant, le point de vue de Luis Villa sur l’affaire : http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-a(…) http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-w(…) What the kernel guys really seem [...]

]]> By: Entenda quais são e como funcionam licenças de software livre http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-25574 Entenda quais são e como funcionam licenças de software livre Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:31:23 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-25574 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] livre, aviso dos desenvolvedores do Linux Forking GNU/LinuxEngajando positivamente na GPLv3 O que os caras do Kernel estão (e não estão) falando sobre a GPLv3 O que os caras do Kernel entenderam erradoo que a FSF entendeu erradoTags: [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback[...] livre, aviso dos desenvolvedores do Linux Forking GNU/LinuxEngajando positivamente na GPLv3 O que os caras do Kernel estão (e não estão) falando sobre a GPLv3 O que os caras do Kernel entenderam erradoo que a FSF entendeu erradoTags: [...]

]]> By: Luis Villa’s Blog / GPL v3, the Q&A: part 1- the license http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-24223 Luis Villa’s Blog / GPL v3, the Q&A: part 1- the license Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:26:45 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-24223 [...] Given that broad background, FSF’s specific goals for v3 were to protect user freedoms from ‘new’ threats like patents, DRM, and tivo-ization, while benefiting (or at least not alienating) developers. To the pragmatist camp, if there were to be changes, they needed to make life easier for developers- including not just individuals, but corporations. Since no one could think of any significant way to improve on the old license in that respect, they wanted to focus primarily on simplifying and strengthening what was already there. [...] [...] Given that broad background, FSF’s specific goals for v3 were to protect user freedoms from ‘new’ threats like patents, DRM, and tivo-ization, while benefiting (or at least not alienating) developers. To the pragmatist camp, if there were to be changes, they needed to make life easier for developers- including not just individuals, but corporations. Since no one could think of any significant way to improve on the old license in that respect, they wanted to focus primarily on simplifying and strengthening what was already there. [...]

]]> By: debianforum.de :: Thema anzeigen - Der Weg zur 3. Version der GNU General Public License http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-23969 debianforum.de :: Thema anzeigen - Der Weg zur 3. Version der GNU General Public License Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:22:30 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-23969 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] man an den Reaktionen sieht: Luis Villa (GNOME Hacker und Mitglied des Diskussion Komitee A): - What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3 - what the kernel guys got wrong - what fsf got wrong Burce Perens in einem Kommentar auf lwn. [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback[...] man an den Reaktionen sieht: Luis Villa (GNOME Hacker und Mitglied des Diskussion Komitee A): - What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3 - what the kernel guys got wrong - what fsf got wrong Burce Perens in einem Kommentar auf lwn. [...]

]]> By: StumbleUpon » Your page is now on StumbleUpon! http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-9125 StumbleUpon » Your page is now on StumbleUpon! Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:52:26 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-9125 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] Your page is on StumbleUpon [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> Kramer auto Pingback[...] Your page is on StumbleUpon [...]

]]> By: tecosystems » Well, So Much for That http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-6782 tecosystems » Well, So Much for That Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:15:43 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-6782 [...] I confess to finding the position paper disappointing, however, in its display of a seemingly obvious bias towards the anti-GPLv3 position. I have no serious issue with the overall decision, nor do I disagree with many of the cited risks except in terms of the probability of those risks actually occuring. I do, however, take exception to the assertion that there is “little, if any” benefit to the dual-licensing approach. Very few, if any, of the individuals against the GPLv3 that I’ve interacted with would contend that moving to the GPLv3 would have such a minimal positive impact. I’m frankly perplexed as to how one would would reach that conclusion, if they’ve given both sides of the debate the consideration they deserve. Even though I don’t personally believe it, I could probably build a case for dual-licensing risks outweighing the benefits. I would not even attempt, however, to claim that there were none. Particularly when there are already voices expressing interest. Not to mention the fact that it’s not even known yet which projects outside of Samba will be moving to V3 - though they’ll doubtless outnumber CDDL projects - so that the potential benefit cannot be accurately assessed beyond the basic conclusion that there would inevitably be combinatorial advantages. [...] [...] I confess to finding the position paper disappointing, however, in its display of a seemingly obvious bias towards the anti-GPLv3 position. I have no serious issue with the overall decision, nor do I disagree with many of the cited risks except in terms of the probability of those risks actually occuring. I do, however, take exception to the assertion that there is “little, if any” benefit to the dual-licensing approach. Very few, if any, of the individuals against the GPLv3 that I’ve interacted with would contend that moving to the GPLv3 would have such a minimal positive impact. I’m frankly perplexed as to how one would would reach that conclusion, if they’ve given both sides of the debate the consideration they deserve. Even though I don’t personally believe it, I could probably build a case for dual-licensing risks outweighing the benefits. I would not even attempt, however, to claim that there were none. Particularly when there are already voices expressing interest. Not to mention the fact that it’s not even known yet which projects outside of Samba will be moving to V3 - though they’ll doubtless outnumber CDDL projects - so that the potential benefit cannot be accurately assessed beyond the basic conclusion that there would inevitably be combinatorial advantages. [...]

]]> By: David Pastern http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4476 David Pastern Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:10:02 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4476 Mike, Hopefully. I like GPL v3, and I like RMS (saw him talk at Sydney Uni a few years ago) - he's an amazing talker, but an amazing man with an amazing foresight. If man could learn to share (like RMS has tried to instill with the GPL), we'd be a better species. A Solaris GPL v3 kernel would be awesome. Truly awesome, it would be a good competitor to have imho. I'm hoping it does happen, it'll shake up the Linux developers. To be entirely honest, there's no way that I'd recommend Linux to a business at this point of time - if you want support (which most businesses will want), you either stick to Redhat or Suse. Those support agreements are at least double the cost of a Sun Solaris agreement - I simply couldn't justify recommending Linux over Solaris, not if the costs are the same or cheaper for Solaris. If you want Linux without support, then I'd probably go with it, but many corporate businesses want that support (rather than having onsite technicians to fix issues). Cheers, Dave Mike,

Hopefully. I like GPL v3, and I like RMS (saw him talk at Sydney Uni a few years ago) - he’s an amazing talker, but an amazing man with an amazing foresight. If man could learn to share (like RMS has tried to instill with the GPL), we’d be a better species. A Solaris GPL v3 kernel would be awesome. Truly awesome, it would be a good competitor to have imho. I’m hoping it does happen, it’ll shake up the Linux developers.

To be entirely honest, there’s no way that I’d recommend Linux to a business at this point of time - if you want support (which most businesses will want), you either stick to Redhat or Suse. Those support agreements are at least double the cost of a Sun Solaris agreement - I simply couldn’t justify recommending Linux over Solaris, not if the costs are the same or cheaper for Solaris. If you want Linux without support, then I’d probably go with it, but many corporate businesses want that support (rather than having onsite technicians to fix issues).

Cheers,

Dave

]]> By: Mike Dolan http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4449 Mike Dolan Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:16:14 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4449 A GPL Solaris is not what happened though - in fact Sun clearly stated it was intentionally incompatible with the GPL. Yes, They threw speculation into the Java announcement about GPL, but that does not make it GPL and Sun is constantly speculating (remember when Schwartz said Sun might buy IBM's server division???). I do expect for them to really want OpenSolaris to work, they will do a GPL license. You're right - if it's GPL3, Sun can't restrict it 'legally' but they can put in a similar governance model, contributor agreement schema, etc to make it as controlled as their projects today - which... ahem ... have little outside code contributions of features or functionality. My point on Linus' kernel having no users was subtle - most users use distributions (they don't pick the kernel). Sure there are those in the community savvy enough to pick a kernel - or build their own - but that's the minority. All users see is the kernel distros choose - so Linus' only real users are RH, Suse, Fedora, OpenSuse, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc. If RH were to pick a BSD kernel, the users would still just evaluate if RH provided the functionality they need (the break in ABI compatibility with a BSD kernel would certain question if RH was providing what they need). I don't see what benefit any of those distributions would get by swapping out the Linux kernel for another. Whether the kernel remains GPL2 doesn't really matter to users. There are other ways to get the benefits of GPL3 without the kernel being relicensed overnight. More to come I think. A GPL Solaris is not what happened though - in fact Sun clearly stated it was intentionally incompatible with the GPL. Yes, They threw speculation into the Java announcement about GPL, but that does not make it GPL and Sun is constantly speculating (remember when Schwartz said Sun might buy IBM’s server division???). I do expect for them to really want OpenSolaris to work, they will do a GPL license.

You’re right - if it’s GPL3, Sun can’t restrict it ‘legally’ but they can put in a similar governance model, contributor agreement schema, etc to make it as controlled as their projects today - which… ahem … have little outside code contributions of features or functionality.

My point on Linus’ kernel having no users was subtle - most users use distributions (they don’t pick the kernel). Sure there are those in the community savvy enough to pick a kernel - or build their own - but that’s the minority. All users see is the kernel distros choose - so Linus’ only real users are RH, Suse, Fedora, OpenSuse, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc. If RH were to pick a BSD kernel, the users would still just evaluate if RH provided the functionality they need (the break in ABI compatibility with a BSD kernel would certain question if RH was providing what they need). I don’t see what benefit any of those distributions would get by swapping out the Linux kernel for another.

Whether the kernel remains GPL2 doesn’t really matter to users. There are other ways to get the benefits of GPL3 without the kernel being relicensed overnight. More to come I think.

]]> By: David Pastern http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4436 David Pastern Sun, 03 Dec 2006 06:57:23 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4436 Mike, With all due respect, if Sun releases Solaris under GPL v3, there's not much they can do to restrict it. That's the whole idea of using the GPL, GPL v3 even more so than GPL v2. GNU/Solaris without the release of the Solaris kernel under the GPL would not be really worth considering, I agree. As to Linus, yes, it's still a kernel, and it's still Linus' kernel, even without users. With no users though, Linux wouldn't get any corporate interest at all. Ever wondered why there's so little proprietary software ported to Linux? Because there's so few users, software developers simply cannot justify it. If GNU/Linux had even less users due to to users avoiding the kernel if it isn't re-licensed to GPL v3, Linus (and others) would get the message very quickly - switch to GPL v3 or become irrelevant. A GNU/Solaris system that was GPL v3'd would probably make it rather unhealthy for Linux imho. Especially if the kernel remains at GPL v2. As to your comments on Solaris and 'one vendor', if it's GPL'd then it won't make much of a difference. The community can modify, remove, fix, add to its hearts content to improve it over a period of time. The lack of vendor support won't really hurt it. I'm no real fan of Sun Microsystems at the best of times, but if Sun does this, I'll happily applaud. As to coming out swinging hard, surely you're kidding yourself ;-) Cheers, Dave Mike,

With all due respect, if Sun releases Solaris under GPL v3, there’s not much they can do to restrict it. That’s the whole idea of using the GPL, GPL v3 even more so than GPL v2. GNU/Solaris without the release of the Solaris kernel under the GPL would not be really worth considering, I agree.

As to Linus, yes, it’s still a kernel, and it’s still Linus’ kernel, even without users. With no users though, Linux wouldn’t get any corporate interest at all. Ever wondered why there’s so little proprietary software ported to Linux? Because there’s so few users, software developers simply cannot justify it. If GNU/Linux had even less users due to to users avoiding the kernel if it isn’t re-licensed to GPL v3, Linus (and others) would get the message very quickly - switch to GPL v3 or become irrelevant. A GNU/Solaris system that was GPL v3′d would probably make it rather unhealthy for Linux imho. Especially if the kernel remains at GPL v2. As to your comments on Solaris and ‘one vendor’, if it’s GPL’d then it won’t make much of a difference. The community can modify, remove, fix, add to its hearts content to improve it over a period of time. The lack of vendor support won’t really hurt it. I’m no real fan of Sun Microsystems at the best of times, but if Sun does this, I’ll happily applaud.

As to coming out swinging hard, surely you’re kidding yourself ;-)

Cheers,

Dave

]]> By: Mike Dolan http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4399 Mike Dolan Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:57:49 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-and-arent-and-really-should-be-saying-about-gpl-v3/#comment-4399 Why do users care if the kernel is GPL2 or GPL3? There are millions of users right now who are fine with what they have today. 99% of users use distributions - not kernels. When do you ever recommend a kernel to a user? And Linus and the kernel developers are still Linus and the kernel developers even with no users - which protects them from say certain corporate interests pulling them in one direction. Gnu/Solaris??? Have you read that license - have you looked at the governance model - have you signed the contributor agreement - are you willing to bet everything on one vendor's control - a vendor who has lost millions every year since when? What reasons would you give the CIO of XYZ Billion Corp (major Linux user today) to suggest that he (or she) should use a GnuGPL2+3/SolarisCDDL kernel vs a GnuGPL2+3/LinuxGPL2 kernel? I'd like to be in that meeting. Sorry to come out swinging so harsh; I think you're ok with it and have tough skin though based on your claims of others being idiots, blind, etc. Why do users care if the kernel is GPL2 or GPL3? There are millions of users right now who are fine with what they have today. 99% of users use distributions - not kernels. When do you ever recommend a kernel to a user?

And Linus and the kernel developers are still Linus and the kernel developers even with no users - which protects them from say certain corporate interests pulling them in one direction. Gnu/Solaris??? Have you read that license - have you looked at the governance model - have you signed the contributor agreement - are you willing to bet everything on one vendor’s control - a vendor who has lost millions every year since when? What reasons would you give the CIO of XYZ Billion Corp (major Linux user today) to suggest that he (or she) should use a GnuGPL2+3/SolarisCDDL kernel vs a GnuGPL2+3/LinuxGPL2 kernel? I’d like to be in that meeting.

Sorry to come out swinging so harsh; I think you’re ok with it and have tough skin though based on your claims of others being idiots, blind, etc.

]]>