What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3

Posted on by Luis Villa

The kernel guys just put out a doc about their feelings on GPL v3. It is really a remarkable document, if for no other reason than that 30-ish kernel developers actually agreed on something :) My thoughts on it are that they are saying some very substantive things, but that they are dodging the real discussion- and maybe it is time for us to have that discussion again.

What they are saying, substantively*:

  • GPL v2 works just fine.
  • No problems are being solved by the new license.
  • The DRM clause limits what users can do, which contradicts the freedoms which users had under v2 and which might scare away both users and contributors.
  • The patent clauses would also scare away potential contributors.
  • The FSF is violating the trust of those who have used the GPL under the assumption that future versions would not be fundamentally different.

Freedom, and how it is defined, is really the issue that all these rotate around. How does it tie these together?

  • GPL v2 works just fine, and no problems are being solved by the new license- it does work fine, if you think that people using your code to build DRM-enabled products is acceptable. Otherwise it is very good- but clearly flawed.
  • The DRM and patent clauses limits users and scares away contributors- both of which are true, but assumes that DRM does not violate meaningful freedoms, and that patents are not a threat to our codebases. (Both of which are defensible positions, I believe, though I don’t agree.)
  • FSF is violating our trust by being ‘political’- which is true, if you think that FSF has never been political. If you’re sane, and realize FSF has from day 1 been political, then you might disagree with this :)

What the kernel guys really seem to want is a GPL 2.1 which reflects their very pragmatic approach to open source- take, as long as you give back. Past that, do whatever. What the FSF- and particularly Richard- wants is a GPL which reflects the FSF’s long-term approach to free software, where patents and DRM are another restriction (like binary software) that could reduce freedoms. Nothing in GPL v3 is inconsistent with FSF’s very long-term mission- to increase what they see as Freedom.

So really, as far as I can see, this is the old Open Source v. Free Software debate coming to a head again, in yet another guise. (Worse, it might be the GPL v. BSD license debate, where everyone argues about the definition of ‘freedom’, all over again.) I really don’t know where I stand on this, but I think it is clear most of the kernel developers are clearly in the Open Source camp. That’s fine- it is certainly their right, and frankly, I think they represent a majority of GPL v2 users. I do wish they had been more forthcoming in this inevitably important document, and spent less time confusing the issue. If they had, the document could have been a lot shorter, a lot sweeter, and a lot more accurate.

Let me make a stab at it, in fact, honestly trying to be as neutral as possible on the definition of Freedom:

“We believe that our particular community of GPL v2 users have come over time to a different definition of freedom than the FSF. We believe that the focus of the GPL should be on the elements that encourage collaborative participation, which include simplicity, enforced code-sharing, and end-user freedom. We reject the FSF’s attempt to define freedom in such a way as to include charged issues like DRM and patents, which our contributors disagree greatly about. As a result, we call on the FSF to stop the current discussion about GPL v3 and create a GPL v2.1, which does not seek to expand the Freedoms of GPL v2 in controversial directions, and instead focuses on strengthening and clarifying the terms of the current GPL so that we can more securely defend the rights and freedoms we believe we currently have, and which we have created a large community around.”

So, yeah. That’s really what it took them five pages to say. I think, put that way, they’ve got a fairly sound argument- clearly lots of people would want to use a GPL 2.1 that had the same focus as GPL v2, but with more refined legal safeguards. I personally would prefer a GPL v3, that prevents people from using my code to create devices whose primary purpose is to deliver DRMd content, and which protects me from the patent portfolios of companies which I may like but can’t trust. But clearly that is a difference of opinion that merely having an open comment period is not going to paper over.

It is telling, of course, that the kernel guys who wrote the paper (and Linus) did not participate in the open comment period. They could easily have done so, but I think at some level they know that this really isn’t about an issue they can discuss with the FSF. They must know that there is no way in hell GPL v2.1 is coming out of the FSF- convincing Richard to redefine what he sees as freedom (and the threats to it) is not ever going to fly. So they didn’t participate- they did an end-run. I wish they hadn’t run so far out, though.

Linus (as usual) says it very clearly and straightforwardly, but again, to the echo chamber of LKML and not to the FSF directly:

“My personal opinion is that a lot of the public discussion has been drivenby people who are motivated by the politics of the discussion. So you have a lot of very vocal GPLv3 supporters. But I think that the people who actually end up doing a lot of the development are usually not as vocal, and haev actually not been heard very much at all.

In some sense, the poll is a way for the people who actually do a lot of the work to show that the FSF doesn’t speak for necessarily even a very big portion of actual developers.”

Where he says ‘politics’ read ‘freedom’ and… yup. Sounds pretty familiar.

* They are saying a lot of other things that frankly I think they got very wrong. Another post about that shortly.

Published by Luis Villa

25 thoughts on “What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3”

  1. , which in turn has many more links of interest, including to Luis Villa’s blog, whose writings I’ve taken a shine to as quickly as I did Moody’s work. There is: “what the kernel guys got wrong,” “What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3,” and “what fsf got wrong.” I see that Luis is attending law school, and with any luck we’ll have another legal freedom fighter to work alongside Eben Moglen and others like those at the EFF. These are the

  2. as from Dalibor Topic. Luis has written two exceptionally good articles. The posting to read first, What the kernel guys got wrong, looks at the statement itself and finds most of the statements in it wanting. Read the comments too. The other post, What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3 digs under the surface and exposes the social dynamics of the complaints. Very insightful analysis, no less than I would expect from Luis who is a very sharp cookie indeed. I’ve been following the GPL v3 process

  3. developpers due to the upcoming release of the GPL v3 and the refuse of most developpers, including Linus Torvalds, to use it. It seems that there are many things both camps got wrong (you can read more on Luis Villa’s blog, here, here and here). FOSS licensing starts to be a mess. Here we have 2 groups with radically different reasons to use the same license. I think that most of it comes to down to interpretation and intent. Linus chose the GPLv2 at the time because it was the one that

  4. I knew this one would turn melodramatic when I read the phrase “the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe” in that piece. Kudos to Luis for separating the content from the rest in his blogs and hitting the nails on the heads regarding the concerns and mistakes of kernel developers and those of the FSF. At least judging by reactions of people on those licensing committees, like Luis, or Simon, the FSF is far from being the manipulative, scheming masterminds of the

  6. Resposta de Linus Torvalds ao documento acima Entrevista do Linus sobre a GPLv3 Linux embarcado e GPLv3 GPLv3 pode matar o software livre, aviso dos desenvolvedores do Linux Forking GNU/Linux Engajando positivamente na GPLv3 O que os caras do Kernel estão (e não estão) falando sobre a GPLv3 O que os caras do Kernel entenderam errado o que a FSF entendeu errado (por bruno) Tags: FSFGNUGPLLinuxOpensource [IMG]

  7. as from Dalibor Topic. Luis has written two exceptionally good articles. The posting to read first, What the kernel guys got wrong, looks at the statement itself and finds most of the statements in it wanting. Read the comments too. The other post, What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3 digs under the surface and exposes the social dynamics of the complaints. Very insightful analysis, no less than I would expect from Luis who is a very sharp cookie indeed. I’ve been following the GPL v3 process

  8. Luis Villa’s Blog » What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about … 4 hours ago wearehugh : Luis Villa’s Blog » What the kernel guys are and aren’t (and really should be) saying about GPL v3 Tags : gpl3 licensing # copy

  10. I think this analysis is highly insightful.

    This sentence rings true to me:
    “We reject the FSF’s attempt to define freedom in such a way as to include charged issues like DRM and patents, which our contributors disagree greatly about.”

    I too get the impression that some kernel developers are against GPLv3 because they fear companies currently contributing would reject it and thus weaken the development community, not because they have strong philosophical attachments to the “fundamental freedoms” offered by GPLv2 that GPLv3 lacks.

    On the other hand, the kernel developers’ concerns about not banning beneficial uses of encryption and license proliferation seems very reasonable.

    Accusing the FSF of playing politics when it has always been political is indeed unwise.
    I’ve helped implement DRM but I also donate to the FSF so I feel torn on this issue.

  12. Any concerns about banning beneficial uses of encryption are misunderstandings of what DRM is. GPL-3 doesn’t ban encryption because encryption is not DRM.

    I am concerned that the extensibility clause will lead to “shopping list” lcienses, but Linux and other projects add “clarifications” already and this will increase compatibility between the GPL and other licenses.

  14. It is wrong to accuse Linus (and LKML) not to have comented on the draft. They did. In private and publicly. Through the FSF’s channels . Their objections weren’t included in the drafts. Sure, it is a right of the drafters not to heed them, but it is also the objectors right to complain publicly. And it is also true that this can’t be just settled by a poll, but if anybody the people who are doing the work covered by the license have to be heard. It is their sole prerogative to decide under what license to place their stuff.

  15. Quote from the article:

    “Linus (as usual) says it very clearly and straightforwardly, but again, to the echo chamber of LKML and not to the FSF directly:

    “My personal opinion is that a lot of the public discussion has been drivenby people who are motivated by the politics of the discussion. So you have a lot of very vocal GPLv3 supporters. But I think that the people who actually end up doing a lot of the development are usually not as vocal, and haev actually not been heard very much at all.

    In some sense, the poll is a way for the people who actually do a lot of the work to show that the FSF doesn’t speak for necessarily even a very big portion of actual developers.”
    ”

    Interesting – Linus is solely looking at this from a developer point of view, forgetting that the end users (non-developers) have any rights to the code. If we were to take a poll of EVERY single Linux user, both end users and developers, I think you’d find that the general consensus is for the Linux kernel to be re-licensed as GPL v3. That is certainly the reaction that I get by speaking to many Linux users. More want GPL v3 than don’t. Simple.

    Linus and the other kernel developers goals are now different, they are making money and gaining employment courtesy of the Linux kernel and corporate interest, and that is of more importance to them than the goals that the GPL originally wished to place on the freedom of the software.

    For Linus (and others) to say that the FSF is being political with the GPL v3 drafts is idiotic. The FSF has always been political, right from the very first draft of the original GPL. Either Linus is blind, idiotic, or a total hypocrite (or all of the above).

    For these reasons, I can no longer recommend the Linux kernel. I’m not personally happy with the BSD license either, I’m sincerely hoping that Sun Micdrosystems will release the Solaris kernel tree under GPL v3 when it’s released. Given that Solaris is a more stable, and more powerful operating system with many innovative features that Linux lacks, this would be a great thing. And I think you’d see many people switching from GNU/Linux to GNU/Solaris simply because of the GPL v3 issue.

    Linus – remember that you and the kernel developers are absolutely NOTHING without the users. Antagonise your users and they’ll go elsewhere.

    Cheers,

    Dave

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. […] 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. […]

  23. […] 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. […]

Comments are closed.