Torvalds "fed up" with the FSF

Newsforge ^ | September 27, 2006 | Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

On Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center (SLFC) chairman Eben Moglen to issue a "renewed invitation" yesterday to kernel developers to participate in the GPLv3 process. Linus Torvalds responded to Moglen's statement by saying that his position on the license is clear and that he's "fed up" with the FSF.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Now granted, I haven't followed the whole GPL3 saga, but from the things I've seen it's alot more "religious" than GPL2. Stallman had his way with it. Most of this article is about Tivo and DRM, but the underlying issue something I've seen in alot of articles like this.

Torvalds isn't interested in Stallman's religion, he just wants to make good software.(or oversee it as it is made)

Anybody else make these observations? Or have I gauged all of this completely wrong?

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm sure I know less about this than you, but I have felt for years that Stallman is a loon. I respect Torvalds. Stallman doesn't live on the same planet I do.

[KoRn]

traceroute

[ThePythonicCow]

That's a reasonable two line summary.

Linus started Linux with a license that said two things:

1. Share and share alike - you must share your changes with others, and
2. You must provide your changes "free", as in beer - no cost.

Within a few months, he picked up the GPLv2 license, which he found to be a good expression of (1), and he dropped (2). Since then, GPLv2 has continue to be a remarkably solid and trouble free expression of (1).

Now Stallman is determined to add constraints on the use of software, so that it can't be used for something like Tivo, which includes hardware cryptographic constraints that let only a Tivo signed operating system be loaded. Stallman doesn't like such crypto constraints and other Digital Rights Media (DRM) locks, and is trying to get a license that prohibits use of Free Software Foundation (FSF) software on systems with such crypto constraints, unless the crypto key is made public.

The FSF holds copyright to much of the free software that we depend on, including the compilers and classic Unix utilities. Stallman intends to change the license on that software from GPLv2 to GPLv3. Linus predicts that this will fork these projects - with many of the key developers on them continuing to work on the GPLv2 licensed variants.

The Linux kernel has its copyright held by the 100's of original authors (including my employers copyright on some code I wrote.) There is no practical way that the license on that software could be changed, without great effort to get the agreement of many companies and people. And the current key maintainers, starting from Linus on down, are publically committed to keeping the GPLv2 license on the Linux kernel. So, unlike the FSF copyright software, such as compilers and utilities, the Linux kernel will without doubt continue under its current GPLv2 license.

Linus's basic position on DRM and TIVO-like closed hardware is that he doesn't like it - but it's no damn business of his or his kernel. A key element of the success of Linux is that you can use it for what you will, including things that Linus finds abhorrent. It is very clear from the GPLv2 license that it is just imposing the "share and share alike rule", not other rules such as "anti-TIVO" or "anti-DRM" rules.

[ThePythonicCow]

Huh?

[kevkrom]

Stallman intends to change the license on that software from GPLv2 to GPLv3. Linus predicts that this will fork these projects - with many of the key developers on them continuing to work on the GPLv2 licensed variants. The Linux kernel has its copyright held by the 100's of original authors (including my employers copyright on some code I wrote.) There is no practical way that the license on that software could be changed, without great effort to get the agreement of many companies and people. And the current key maintainers, starting from Linus on down, are publically committed to keeping the GPLv2 license on the Linux kernel. So, unlike the FSF copyright software, such as compilers and utilities, the Linux kernel will without doubt continue under its current GPLv2 license.

And, just to point out the obvious, it is impossible to retroactively change a license, so anyone with software using an existing GPLv2 license can continue to use and develop it just like today.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

That's what I thought.

I'm not a big fan of DRM either, but Stallman clearly has issues.

[ThePythonicCow]

it is impossible to retroactively change a license

Whomever holds the copyright can reissue the code under a different license. Whomever has some rights to the code under an existing license doesn't loose those rights.

So yes, holders of FSF copyright software can continue to use and develop and share that software under the GPLv2 terms.

[ShadowAce]

[kevkrom]

Right. If ALL of the copyright holders of a piece of work agree, the software can be issued under any number of licenses that they choose. However, the fact that multiple licenses exist doesn't invalidate any particular one.

This, by the way, is why one should never assign copyright to the FSF. They claim they want to have the copyrights to make legal enforcement of the license more effective, but it also enables them to do this kind of monkey business as well. Develp and release under whatever license you desire, but always retain your own copyrights so that you have a say in how the software is distributed.

[rit]

     Bruce Lehman, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks from 1993 to 1999, has an interesting article in the America Bar Association, Business Law Section, Cyberspace Coimmittee, Intellectual Property Subcommittee newsletter titled Is Open Source Incompatible with Intellectual Property?
      Lehman is now with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Very nice exposition - thanks!

[rzeznikj at stout]

IOW, RMS is trying to push a political agenda and the prime mover for the entire system (Torvalds) is literally saying "No Thanks..."

IB4GE.

[Echo Talon]

well if linux wants to play nice they will have to accept the DRM like ecreyone else, LOL

[ThePythonicCow]

Linus and Linux do accept DRM code. It's Stallman and FSF that are resisting.

[ThePythonicCow]

the prime mover for the entire system (Torvalds)

Linus Torvalds is not the prime mover for the entire system. He's only one of a 1000 copyright holders on one piece of the system - the kernel.

Stallman's Free Software Foundation holds the copyright to great chunks of the system, including the critical gcc compiler and some other 5000+ packages, as listed at FSF Free Software Directory.

[Echo Talon]

Well, let Stallman fork it and his own code. LOL

[ThePythonicCow]

Well, we need the compiler, gcc. The Linux kernel will not compile with any other compiler. But fortunately we can continue to use the existing compiler, under its existing GPLv2 license. Compilers are constantly changing, as are most other large, interesting code bases. So unfortunately, if critical changes, such as new instruction set architectures, are added under GPLv3, it could get "interesting."

[ThePythonicCow]

But, yeah, interesting images of Stallman and forks have passed through the minds of several of us.

[Echo Talon]

LOL, or spoons(you know gag me with a spoon!) :)