Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750785AbWIYIxS (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:53:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750791AbWIYIxS (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:53:18 -0400 Received: from post-23.mail.nl.demon.net ([194.159.73.193]:16338 "EHLO post-23.mail.nl.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750785AbWIYIxR (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:53:17 -0400 Message-ID: <451798FA.8000004@rebelhomicide.demon.nl> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:53:14 +0200 From: Michiel de Boer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Bottomley CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement References: <1158941750.3445.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> In-Reply-To: <1158941750.3445.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4884 Lines: 99 James Bottomley wrote: > Although this white paper was discussed amongst the full group of kernel > developers who participated in the informal poll, as you can expect from > Linux Kernel Developers, there was a wide crossection of opinion. This > document is really only for discussion, and represents only the views of > the people listed as authors (not the full voting pool). > > James > > ---------- > > The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3 > > > James E.J. Bottomley Mauro Carvalho Chehab > Thomas Gleixner Christoph Hellwig Dave Jones > Greg Kroah-Hartman Tony Luck Andrew Morton > Trond Myklebust David Woodhouse > > 15 September 2006 > Abstract > > This document is a position statement on the GNU General Public > License version 3 (in its current Draft 2 form) and its surrounding > process issued by some of the Maintainers of the Linux Kernel > speaking purely in their role as kernel maintainers. In no regard > should any opinion expressed herein be construed to represent the > views of any entities employing or being associated with any of the > authors. > > 1 Linux and GPLv2 > > Over the past decade, the Linux Operating System has shown itself to be far > and away the most successful Open Source operating system in history. > However, it certainly wasn't the first such open source operating system > and neither is it currently the only such operating system. We believe that > the pre-eminent success of Linux owes a great part to the dynamism and > diversity of its community of contributors, and that one of the catalysts > for creating and maintaining this community is the development contract as > expressed by GPLv2. > > ....... > > 6 Conclusions > > The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and > collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence > proposal. However, we also note that the current draft with each of the > unacceptable provisions stripped out completely represents at best marginal > value over the tested and proven GPLv2. Therefore, as far as we are > concerned (and insofar as we control subsystems of the kernel) we cannot > foresee any drafts of GPLv3 coming out of the current drafting process that > would prove acceptable to us as a licence to move the current Linux Kernel > to. > > Further, since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to > GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we > foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open > Source Universe upon which we rely. This Balkanisation, which will be > manifested by distributions being forced to fork various packages in order > to get consistent licences, has the potential to inflict massive collateral > damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardise the very utility and > survival of Open Source. Since we can see nothing of sufficient value in > the current drafts of the GPLv3 to justify this terrible cost, we can only > assume the FSF is unaware of the current potential for disaster of the > course on which is has embarked. Therefore, we implore the FSF to > re-examine the consequences of its actions and to abandon the current GPLv3 > For what it's worth, i support RMS and his fight for free software fully. I support the current draft of the GPL version 3 and am very dissapointed it will not be adopted as is. IMHO, Linux has the power and influence to move mountains in the software industry, and shouldn't shy away from the opportunity to take moral responsibility when it arises. What is the stance of the developer team / kernel maintainers on DRM, Trusted Computing and software patents? Does the refusal to adopt GPLv3 as is mean that these two are more likely to emerge as supported functionality in the Linux kernel? Are there any moral boundaries Linux kernel developers will not cross concerning present and new U.S. laws on technology? Are they willing to put that in writing? Will Linux support HD-DVD and BluRay by being slightly more tolerant to closed source binary blobs? What about the already existant problems with the Content Scrambling System for DVD's? Finally, i hope that the wishes of the community of people that have only contributed to the kernel a few times but whose combined work may equal that of the core developers, are taken into account; as well as the wishes of the massive amount of users of the Linux kernel. How about a public poll? Regards, Michiel de Boer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/