Articles [Show All]
Coming Soon
|
Torvalds: No GPL 3 for Linux
January 30, 2006, 8:26 pm |
http://www.zdnetindia.com/news/software/stories/133137.html
Linus Torvalds rejects the planned update to the
seminal open-source license, citing its DRM
provisions.
The position is a significant--though not entirely
unexpected--rejection of the update, the first to the
seminal license in 15 years. Linux, the kernel at the
heart of an operating system that clones much of
generally proprietary Unix, is considered the
best-known and most successful example of open-source
software.
"Conversion isn't going to happen," Torvalds said in a
posting to the Linux kernel mailing list. "I don't
think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the
kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any
of my code."
Torvalds specifically objected to one new provision in
the GPL 3 draft that opposes digital rights
management, which is technology that uses encryption
to control the use of content and running of software.
"I think it's insane to require people to make their
private signing keys available, for example. I
wouldn't do it," he said.
The GPL is a legal document and manifesto of the free
software and open-source movements. It outlines
several freedoms for collaborative software
development, stipulating that a program's underlying
source code may be seen, copied, modified and
distributed.
The Linux-GPL issue highlights a long-running
philosophical split in the collaborative programming
movements. Torvalds represents a pragmatic approach
that accommodates computer industry prevailing
practices. For example, Torvalds worked for years on
proprietary software at chip designer Transmeta, and
he permits proprietary video card drivers to be loaded
as modules into the Linux kernel.
On the other side of the divide is Richard Stallman,
founder and president of the Free Software Foundation.
His goals are explicitly ethical and social, and his
principles are unbending. "The foundation believes
that free software--that is, software that can be
freely studied, copied, modified, reused,
redistributed and shared by its users--is the only
ethically satisfactory form of software development,
as free and open scientific research is the only
ethically satisfactory context for the conduct of
mathematics, physics or biology," Stallman and FSF
attorney Eben Moglen wrote in a GPL 3 background
article.
GPL 3 draft released
The Free Software Foundation released the first public
draft of GPL 3 earlier in January. The move began
what's expected to be about a year's worth of
discussion and revision.
The GPL 3 draft contains new words opposing digital
rights management, which Stallman and Moglen regard as
technology that restricts freedoms users must have.
"As a free software license, this license
intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict
users' freedom to copy, modify and share copyrighted
works," the draft license states. "No permission is
given...for modes of distribution that deny users that
run covered works the full exercise of the legal
rights granted by this license."
In other words, some form of locking of GPL code to
prevent changes from an authorized version is
forbidden.
Torvalds' position is not a surprise. In a 2003
posting to the kernel mailing list, Linux founder
explicitly opened the door to DRM.
"I also don't necessarily like DRM myself," Torvalds
wrote. "But...I'm an 'Oppenheimer,' and I refuse to
play politics with Linux, and I think you can use
Linux for whatever you want to--which very much
includes things I don't necessarily personally approve
of."
Torvalds founded the Linux project in 1991, the same
year the current GPL version 2 was released, and is
still its leader. His kernel project dovetailed with
work Stallman had already began to create a free clone
of Unix, called Gnu's Not Unix (GNU). Because of that
combination, the Free Software Foundation prefers the
entire operating system be called GNU/Linux--though it
has other important components, such as the Xorg
graphics system, that come from other groups.
In a 2004 interview, Torvalds indicated he wants the
GPL to serve nothing beyond the single function of
keeping source code open.
"I really want a license to do just two things: Make
the code available to others, and make sure that
improvements stay that way. That's really it. Nothing
more, nothing less. Everything else is fluff."
Because of that cautious stance, Torvalds specifically
didn't follow with Linux the Free Software
Foundation's recommendation to describe a software
project as governed by version 2 or "any later
version."
The issue of moving to GPL 3 is grounded in
copyrights. Many open-source projects, such as MySQL
or OpenSolaris, require that programmers turn over
copyrights to a central organization. That
organization then grants the programmers a license of
their own to the software source code in question. But
with Linux, the copyrights are held by a large number
of individuals and companies that contributed the
code.
To convert Linux to GPL 3, it's likely more than just
Torvalds' approval would be required. For example,
when the SpamAssassin project converted to the Apache
License so it could become part of the Apache Software
Foundation, project organizers spent months getting
explicit permission for the change from about 100
copyright holders. Even then, not all contributors
could be found, and some software had to be rewritten.
The Free Software Foundation also has lodged
objections about Torvalds. In an interview after the
GPL 3 draft was released, Moglen said Torvalds doesn't
use a "pure GPL" and that practices such as permitting
proprietary video drivers violate the license.
Missing out
Keeping Linux with GPL 2 means the project won't be
able to take advantage of some changes. And some
experts believe GPL 3 is better.
"I think it's a definite improvement. It clarifies
where there is ambiguity and deals with issues that
have come up over time," said Mark Radcliffe, an
intellectual property attorney with DLA Piper Rudnick
Gray Cary who represents the Open Source Initiative
and who is overseeing some gathering of commentary for
the GPL 3.
Regarding rights management, Radcliffe said Stallman
"views DRM as potentially evil. He wants to make it
very clear that DRM is not permitted, and you cannot
implement DRM systems using GPL code."
But Radcliffe also believes those fears could be
overstated, judging by the commercial failures of
attempts to control software in the past--such as with
hardware "dongles" that must be attached to a computer
before a particular program will run. "The practical
risk of it being applied to software is lower than it
being applied to content," he said.
--
------------------------------------------------
Vinay Yadav vinayRas Infotech
www.vinayras.com Nagpur, India
------------------------------------------------
Linux Consultant & PHP/MySQL Developer
------------------------------------------------
|
|
