GPLv3: What is an alternative solution?
Submitted by libervisco on Tue, 2006-09-26 17:22.
digital rights free software gpl gplv3 linux
As suspected, the criticizing position statement by Linux kernel developers on GPLv3 which calls for the termination of the GPLv3 process is stirring the pot. Free Software foundation has issued a response claiming that the recent discussion brought some misleading information and tried to address and clarify it. Soon after Linus Torvalds released a statement of his own, this time taking a more positive approach by praising GPLv2 with an attitude of "not caring so much about why the GPLv3 is worse, but a much more positive 'Why the GPLv2 is _better_".
I would have to applaud this attempt at putting a positive spin on the discussion. At the very least it disperses a view that could potentially develop among outsiders not knowing too much about GPL and not involved in the discussion, that when questioning GPLv3, it is whole GPL (no matter the version) which is being brought in question.
Linus makes a good point about the advantage of GPLv2. It is simpler and describes an universally understood "this for that", "tit for tat" or "quid pro quo" concept. It grants certain rights to a software user (which can also be a developer) under the condition that the user respect those same rights for others as well. Hence you can take a piece of software along with the right to use, modify and share it as you wish, but you cannot restrict the next person who you may share the software with from having exactly those same rights. In the same sense a programmer can take code from a pool of GPLed software and develop it into his own program, but under the condition that this derivate be free for others just as the code he took was free for him.
GPLv2 doesn't deal with anything else explicitely, but the principle described above. GPLv3 however goes a bit further by explicitely addressing certain threats and this explicity is something Linus apparently opposes.
What his argument seems to be missing, though, is that there is a very good reason for which this explicity is being introduced. GPLv2 is not just a simple message, but a copyright license that is meant to protect rights it grants. You would think that the copyright law is the one which should play this role, but in face of DRM this is apparently not the case. You can obey copyright law, and still infringe on the intent behind GPLv2 essentially breaking the "quid pro quo" state of things that GPLv2 tries to establish and which is what Linus praises.
Linus mentions that GPLv2 works, but it seems that this is only true until you introduce DRM into the picture and its ability to practically circumvent the desired outcome of the license.
So far, we have seen criticism of GPLv3 and praise of GPLv2, but the core problems that GPLv3 tries to solve remain unsufficiently addressed. The question remains, what do critiques, including in this case Linus Torvalds, suggest as an alternative solution for the problem of DRM and software patents and especially its ability to circumvent the intent behind GPLv2? We haven't heard any real constructive ideas for that yet.
I suppose we shall stay tuned.
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
Do nothing!
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-09-27 12:05.
I'm with Linus on this one, Tivoisation won't be stopped by GPLv3, they'll just use an inferour closed source bit of code instead. If we're stuck with TIVO lets have a high quality secure TIVO.
Same goes for trusted computing.
Besides TIVO gives their code back, quite possiblely the MythTV guys study/use it, thats all the licence should make them do.
The GPL v3 does not have magical powers
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-09-27 12:11.
It will not save us from DRM, Treacherous Computing, or stupid legislation. None of those have been caused by a software license, none of them will be solved by one.
Maybe not, but a software
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-09-27 14:35.
Maybe not, but a software license can help us fight DRM and treacherous computing.
So am I right to assume that
Submitted by libervisco on Wed, 2006-09-27 15:10.
So am I right to assume that there is no alternative solution in sight?
So what is Linus's problem!? He shouts, criticizes, bashes and misinforms, and yet he has so little to offer.
Joey
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 05:46.
Linus' problem is that he now speaks for OSDL... meaning IBM, HP etc etc, and they DO want the Linux kernel to be used for Trusted Computing based DRM. Torvalds hasn't said a correct thing about the GPL v3 since the initial draft, and he's getting more and more shrill in his condemnations.
Do not care for the implication...
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 18:38.
Do not forget that Linus turned down multiple offers from Linux Distros for lucrative employment / stock options / etc because of wanting to remain neutral. (To the point of wanting to avoid the APPEARANCE of favoring one distro over another)
I am confident that if OSDL tried to undermine his ability to take an independent stand that he would leave and bid them "pleasant journeys..."
He is one of the FEW people on earth who CAN and HAVE taken a position based on ethics above a paycheck. Those types of people generally do NOT change into boot lickers overnight (if ever)
...
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-09-27 19:26.
pfft, We'd all still be using 2.4 kernels if it were up to him, right? 
If anyone wants a glimpse at what the FSF's main points and concerns are with the v3, head on over to the twit network and download the latest FLOSS weekly. I'm going to have to listen to it three or four times before i fully grasp what that guy was talking about. it's a good look at what they're trying to solve with the v3 of the GPL.
who are you to object?
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 02:53.
It is their kernel, if it is ok with them to use it in DRM devices, then who are you to object?
The Alternative
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 03:33.
Linux isn't offering an alternative because we're already using it...the alternative is
to *allow Tivo-ization* via GPL2. You can make your hardware so that it requires a
specific version of GPL2 code...but give me the code back so I can study it, use it,
and do whatever I want--on my own hardware. Thats what Linus is saying is the alternative.
And I agree with him.
The writing is on the wall
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 06:59.
Already now general purpose machines like Playstations need to get "modded" in order to be able to run software that the user wants to run. "Trusted computing" and its ilk are slated as the future of computers. If it becomes impossible to acquire computers running any software that the manufacturer does not like, the availability of source code is no longer useful for hackers (people making clever new uses of the machine's abilities), but only for crackers (people exploiting vulnerabilities for gaining illicit access).
Torvald's solution is "build your own devices". But at the current miniaturization, this is impossible for anybody without a multi-billion budget: you have to rely on prebuilt circuits.
It works
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 10:37.
It works as far as you consider it works in the US. GPLv3 is trying to address some problems that rendered the GPLv2 barely usable outside the US in terms of legal language. IMHO, Tit-for-tat is what GPLv3 tries to get too, but, as anyone can understand, it's not enough wording a license as: 'This license states tit-for-tat'. A lot of improvements to what v2 provided to protect that use in practice are getting its way into v3.
Nothing
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2006-09-29 07:49.
GPLv3 will address exactly nothing. As I see it has absolutely no chance to become mainstream.And for that reason it will have absolutely no power to address something. In order to make a difference you have to convince people and unite them around you. Or as everyone can see FSF's result is exactly the oposite. Extremism is not the solution, but FSF and RMS wants to reach new peaks of stupidity, then let them have it. Let them create a license that no one (significant) will use.
DRM will not be defeated with a license . And surely it will not be defeated with a license that nobody uses.
Anyway, the biggest problem of all it's not who's right or wrong about the DRM/Tivoization issues. The biggest problem is the rift FSF is creating in good knowledge, even that they know they don't stand a chance to *really* achieve what they want. But they are still pushing on stupid ideeas that will finally lead to a loose-loose situation. We all will loose. There world is not all black or white. It's rather grey. You should be able to make compromises to be able to live in a society. Linus stated that if the "anti tivoization" issue will be put out then he will not oppose the new license so much. FSF on the other side shows no sign of stepping back.
Quote: You can make your
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 13:10.
You can make your hardware so that it requires a
specific version of GPL2 code...but give me the code back so I can study it, use it,
and do whatever I want--on my own hardware. Thats what Linus is saying is the alternative.
And I agree with him.
so.. what your saying is.. even though you "bought" a tivo.. it is still not yours..? the tivo box IS your own equipment.. however.. you CAN NOT use your software.. ( yes "your" software, becuase it is yours to study and modify) on YOUR own equipment (your tivo box) because you were not given everything you needed to be able to do that.. so what good is having the source code....? what fixes can you apply to "your" tivo if you found a problem..? none! OH.. wait.. thats ok becuase you really don't own your equipment..!!
Linus is looking out for business not the user.. big business wants to come in and either try to find a way to circumvent what the GPL tries to grant you and go along for a free ride as tivo has done or they want to try to change the rules to suit them.. and linus is so progmatic that he will forsake the user for the sake of business.. if a fork is needed then so be it.. i feel that in the long run.. the detracters of GPLv3 will come to see that the changes were needed..
Linus has a different view of tit for tat than the FSF.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-09-28 18:01.
Linus doesn't care about the Tivos of the world as long as they make the source code available. That is his "tit for tat". Being able to recompile your tivo kernel, and install it on your tivo isn't a concern of his. Linus tends to believe that making code availble with an OSS license will promote more openness.
Quote: GPLv3 will address
Submitted by libervisco on Fri, 2006-09-29 18:13.
GPLv3 will address exactly nothing. As I see it has absolutely no chance to become mainstream.And for that reason it will have absolutely no power to address something. In order to make a difference you have to convince people and unite them around you. Or as everyone can see FSF's result is exactly the oposite.
Don't confuse a few kernel developers as "everyone". Just because they bear alot of influence doesn't mean they represent all Free Software developers. Just because they are so vocal in raising their concerns that it appears as if the "masses have spoken" doesn't mean that the majority of actual masses disagree with what GPLv3 is going to be. From reading both articles and comments on the issue there are as much or more of GPLv3 supporters than are opposers.
Extremism is not the solution, but FSF and RMS wants to reach new peaks of stupidity, then let them have it. Let them create a license that no one (significant) will use.
DRM will not be defeated with a license . And surely it will not be defeated with a license that nobody uses.
First of all you're using the word "extremism" to describe the wrong group of people. Extremists are those who wish to impose the level of control over your property the way DRM does. FSF merely tries to protect the pool of GPLed software from the kind of abuse shown in a TiVo case (use Free Software with all the freedoms, and provide a crippled set of freedoms back).
You may be right that GPLv3 may not be the *solution* to DRM, but in the end it is not meant to be a solution as much as it is meant to protect from DRM abuse. It is not a solution to DRM, but it is a solution to DRM abuse of Free Software. This is not a restriction of end uses as much as it is a restriction on freedom subverting practices.
Anyway, the biggest problem of all it's not who's right or wrong about the DRM/Tivoization issues. The biggest problem is the rift FSF is creating in good knowledge, even that they know they don't stand a chance to *really* achieve what they want.
Just as much as you can say that FSF is the one creating the rift I can say Linus & Co. are actually the ones doing it. FSF is merely sticking to its original vision and cause. It never wavered from it, why would it do so now? Because Linus and company disproves it? They've always been playing "pragmatists" and apolitical (despite all the political statements that Linus keeps spouting).
There world is not all black or white. It's rather grey.
The grey is what you get when you mix black and white, right? So what of the two should we try to brighten, the black or white? If we work towards good with as little compromise as possible the worlds grey will be closer to white. There are many things in which compromise is more of a detractor from the cause than a benefit. Why would FSF waver, again? Why would it compromise when compromising has, not the potential to spread freedom, but the potential to compromise it to its loss! If your goal is something else and not freedom that's another thing, but if your goal is freedom then you can't build it on compromises.
Linus stated that if the "anti tivoization" issue will be put out then he will not oppose the new license so much. FSF on the other side shows no sign of stepping back.
You call that "stepping back"?!? Doing what Linus here asks them to do would pretty much beat the whole point of the license. Linus could have just said them to stop developing the license at all. Oh wait.. they already did!
Nothing!
>>what do critiques, including in this case Linus Torvalds, suggest as
>>an alternative solution for the problem of DRM and software patents
>>and especially its ability to circumvent the intent behind GPLv2
Linus does NOT care! He does NOT feel the need to prevent Tivoization or any other DRM!
Not everybody's an activist, not everybody's RMS!