Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760524AbXFSSU2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:20:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756918AbXFSSUS (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:20:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:42547 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754030AbXFSSUO (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:20:14 -0400 To: Johannes Stezenbach Cc: Manu Abraham , Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , Bernd Schmidt , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Daniel Hazelton , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <20070618155016.GA31892@linuxtv.org> <20070618232549.GA22170@linuxtv.org> <20070619102817.GA24588@linuxtv.org> <4677B943.2060601@gmail.com> <20070619131053.GA25272@linuxtv.org> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:19:02 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070619131053.GA25272@linuxtv.org> (Johannes Stezenbach's message of "Tue\, 19 Jun 2007 15\:10\:53 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6085 Lines: 123 On Jun 19, 2007, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > (Where "free loaders" is a term introduced by Alexandre, not by me.) It's actually from game theory. Or something sufficiently mangled by translation back and forth between English and Portuguese. I think the original is actually free riders. My bad. > The GPLv2 is a sufficient tool to defend free software > against those that don't even grasp tit-for-tat. It's not. It doesn't even demand tit-for-tat. This is a *consequence* of the player understanding the spirit. You can't convince a person who doesn't believe in these ideas by pointing at the license and saying "see, look, you're going to get contributions back", because there are no such guarantees in the license. And that's how it should be. > But it has to be their decision, IMHO it's wrong to force them. Agreed. Nobody is forcing anyone to use GPLed software. Nobody is forcing anyone to accept existing software under the GPLv3. What every GPL stands to do is to defend the freedoms of users, respecting the wishes of the authors expressed through the GPL that the free software mains free. Of course, authors who use the GPL for other purposes may differ, but whether or not their claims that the GPL advances their stances bear any resemblance with reality is irrelevant. This doesn't change what the GPL stands to do in any way, it only changes what they expect the GPL to accomplish. And whether they're right or wrong in their expectations is besides the point. > The GPLv3 tries to be a tool to defend against those that > don't subscribe to the full Free Software Definition. Not quite. There appears to be an occurrence of a very common mistake in your message. Please forgive the long digression to try to dispell it. Many people think that the GPL is what the Free Software Definition is all about, that Free Software somehow implies GPL, or some other misunderstandings (to be read without a condescending tone ;-) Free Software, and in particular the Free Software Definition, talks about *respecting* users' freedoms. There are many Free Software licenses that accomplish this. Some are very liberal in this sense. They let you do whatever you want with the code. Even use it to disrespect users' freedoms. Others are not so liberal. They go *beyond* the Free Software Definition, i.e., beyond merely respecting users' freedoms. They require agreement from recipients to not disrespect some users' freedoms with the software, in some specific ways. In addition to *respecting* some freedoms, they *defend* some freedoms. Others take the stance of defending all the four users' freedoms, requiring agreement to not disrespect any users' freedoms with the software, and to pass on this requirement, such that that software is never used to disrespect users' freedoms. These are called copyleft licenses. GPL is just one among all copyleft licenses, that are just some among all licenses that defend some users' freedoms, that are just some among all licenses that abide by the Free Software definition. It just so happens that it's the most widely-used Free Software license. Think of it this way (if you understand open source but don't know much of its history): the Open Source Definition is a rewritten version of the Free Software Definition, intended to retain the same meaning, but with a different focus. That's why, as a general rule, Free Software licenses are Open Source licenses, and Open Source licenses are Free Software licenses. AFAIK there is only one known exception, and that's the open-source license Reciprocal Public License, which goes to show that the Open Source definition is not equivalent to the Free Software definition. The differences are held to be in the motivations behind each of the movements. While Free Software takes the respect for the freedoms as a moral issue (it's the right thing to do), Open Source takes it as a pragmatic issue (it's better for everyone). As luck would have it, the pragmatic benefits are a consequence of the respect for users' freedoms. And more, pragmatists who see value in ensuring that the software remains open source (which any OSI board member will insist that is far more than merely keeping the source code open) are perceiving a consequence of ensuring that the software remains Free, of defending the freedoms of all users of the software. Sure, there are other pragmatists that don't even care about the software remaining open source, but only about the source code remaining available. We still have a lot in common with them, and we can happily work together in projects under a number of licenses in which our goals overlap. It's not like everyone needs to move to GPLv3. It's that there would be moral and practical benefits for everyone if everyone did. But if those who don't want to don't, nothing is really lost. It's just that both Free Software and Open Source Software advocates who care not only about abiding by their definitions, but also about defending and advancing their goals (i.e., not willing to see their software being used against their goals, and wanting to see more software like that), don't get an advance in these defenses without the relicensing. That's unfortunate, but it's not the end of the world. Nobody can, should or will force any copyright holder to adopt the GPLv3. Any claims to the contrary are emotional reactions to peer pressure, which very clearly exists, since there are indeed numerous people who want to advance their goals and would like to use the GPLv3 as a tool. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/