gplv3

It seems that Sun Microsystems are considering GPL-ing Solaris. What's even more interesting is they are thinking of using the controversial version 3 of the license, which has yet to be published. This follows a post last January by Sun's Jonathan Schwartz where he indicated that Sun were looking into the use of the GPLv3 for Solaris.

If this follows through GNU/Solaris may become the operating system for computer users who value their freedom. Why? Well since Linus Torvalds stated that the Linux Kernel - the base of the GNU/Linux OS - will remain GPLv2, tensions have arisen within the Free Software community who wish that the Linux Kernel would be protected from things such as Tivoization in the future, a protection the GPLv3 hopes to offer. Thus with an alternative Free kernel, users who feel sore over the whole 'GPLv3 and the Linux Kernel' debate might dump the Linux kernel for the Solaris offering.

RegDeveloper has caught up with Eben Moglen to talk about the Novell's deal with Microsoft, FSF's response to it and GPLv3 as the basis of that response. Instead of litigation, which has been suggested by some on the basis of potential violation of the GPLv2, the tool which will be used against this largely negatively criticized deal is the new version of the GPL. Some believe this is just a "knee-jerk" reaction to the "threat of the day", but the clarification provided by Eben Moglen sheds a slightly different light on it. It appears that the GPLv3 is merely following its present agenda, which (with or without the MS-Novell deal) is incompatible with what MS and Novell tried to do with their patent covenant.

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.

A group of important Linux kernel developers have recently published a position statement on GPLv3, as reported by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a story with a rather alarmist title: "GPLv3 could kill open source, top Linux dev's warn". In truth, the goal is exactly and essentially just the opposite. I have little doubt that the statement will deepen the controversy already present around the new version of the most popular Free Software license, especially since Linus Torvalds criticized the license on a number of occassions before.

Unfortunately, the statement doesn't strike me as very constructive in regards to the GPLv3 development process. Indeed, it calls for its termination under a rather drastic prediction of what should happen otherwise, " balkanization, which will be manifested by distributions being forced to fork various packages in order to get consistent licenses, has the potential to inflict massive collateral damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardize the very utility and survival of Open Source."