Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
>> >
>> > No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people
>> > don't *agree* on the "spirit".
>> 
>> They don't have to.
>> 
>> Just like nobody but you can tell why you chose the GPLv2, nobody but
>> RMS can tell why he wrote the GPL.  And the intent behind writing the
>> GPL is what defines its spirit.

> "Charging for programs is an crime against humanity"

Assuming he actually said that, I have no doubt that it would
pre-dates by far even the Free Software Definition, let alone the GPL.

> See, you can't even keep the FSF's "Free Software Definition" and its 
> inherent "religion" out of the discussion.

Of course not.  That's what the spirit of the GPL is all about.  And
the spirit of the GPL is what the discussion is all about for me.

> Sure, the FSF can claim that the GPL is intended as a way to
> "defend" the "Four Freedoms" defined *BY* *THEM*, but unless alluded
> to in the license, the only bearing it can have, anywhere, is on the
> "intent" of the license, as seen by the FSF.

Exactly!  And since the *Free* *Software* Foundation wrote the
license, and documented the goals in the preamble, referring to
keeping *free* *software* *free*, it is quite safe to say that this
*is* indeed the intent, the spirit of the GPL.

> And if the "ability to run a "covered work" on any piece of hardware
> is "freedom 0" then binary distribution is in violation of the
> "spirit" - I can't run an x86 binary on a PPC. Isn't that a
> "designed in hardware restriction" that violates the "spirit" of the
> license ?

It's not.  freedom and ability have two very different meanings.

Freedom to run the software for any purpose means that people won't
stop you from doing that.  It may take you some work, such as porting
the software, rebuilding it, etc.  But if, at the end of that effort,
you find that it will run on your development machine, but not in a
machine where the original software runs on, and that's because the
manufacturer imposed prohibitions on running unauthorized versions of
the software, then the manufacturer of the hardware is very clearly
disrespecting your freedom #0 WRT that software.

Demanding the ability to run the software for any purpose, without any
effort whatsoever, would indeed be nonsensical.

 
(BTW, covered work is a legal term, only present in the legal portion
of the license, which I'm actively avoiding, because I'm not a lawyer,
and my point is about the spirit.  but I'm sure I wrote that before
;-)

>> > I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I?
>> 
>> Yes.  That's precisely why I don't understand your stance.  Because I
>> expect you to be intelligent, but starting from your stated motivation
>> for choosing GPLv2, and from the consequences of the anti-tivoization
>> provisions, you'd satisfy your motivations better with v3.

> It is only *YOUR* opinion that the GPLv3 is the better license.

Are you even reading what I write?

>> Tivoization reduces the motivation for customers of tivoized devices
>> to improve the software.  You end up with contributions from the
>> manufacturers alone, instead of from all the user community.

> No, it reduces their motivation to improve the software on *those*
> devices. If they like the software enough to actually download the
> source, they probably also liked it enough to install it on their
> computer *AND* will modify it to make it work better on their
> computer.

Sure, but that's a different point.  They could do that with or
without tivoization.

The point is that, if they have an issue with the program in the
device, and they'd like to improve it, but they find that they won't
be able to use their modification to get the device to do what they
want, they're less likely to make the change.

Now multiply this by all customers, and see how much you're losing by
permitting tivoization, assuming that at least some tivoizers would
change their minds towards respecting users' freedoms, if faced with
an anti-tivoization licensing provision.

> With your argument about reduced motive shotten down this portion falls apart.

A distraction doesn't shoot down an argument.

>> - the spirit of the GNU GPL, written by RMS in the FSF, is to keep
>> Free Software Free, respecting and defending the freedoms of users of
>> software licensed under the GPL

> Agreed. The disagreement is about what that spirit is.

What is the 'agreed' supposed to mean, then? ;-)

> I feel that its spirit is in the free and open exchange of ideas, as
> personified by the software people write. I *ALSO* feel that it's
> spirit lies in the phrase "do whatever you want with the software as
> long - but if you add your own ideas to it, give them back to the
> people like your inspiration was given to you."

You're entitled to have these motivations to release software under
GPLv2, or any other license that you believe furthers these goals.

But you have no say whatsoever on what intent RMS had when he wrote
the GPL, just like he has no say whatsoever on what intent you have
when you choose the GPL for your program.

> You, the FSF and, apparently, RMS, feel it is about the "Four
> Freedoms" as defined by RMS.

s/feel/know/

> I'm quite sure that my view is much more common among the people
> that *DON'T* think that the FSF and RMS are never wrong.

Others can choose the GPL for other reasons.  There's nothing wrong
with this.

What's wrong is to then complain that the GPL is changing the spirit,
just because the revised version allegedly no longer matches their
reasons.

>> - GPLv3 does not change this spirit

>> On the contrary, it advances this spirit.  Given that defending
>> these freedoms is the mission of the FSF, it's no surprise that it
>> does revise the GPL to do it.  It's not like it has a choice.

> Again, that is *your* version of the "spirit".

Again, this is the FSF version of the spirit, the only one that
matters as far as "the spirit of the GPL" is concerned.

>> - Tivoization reduces the incentive for contributions

>> Customers of tivoized devices can't enjoy or even test the benefits
>> of their modifications to the software on the device where the
>> modifications would be most useful for them.

> I agree to the "can't enjoy or test" bits.

See, no "argument shot down" ;-)

> But I don't believe that it reduces anything.

It reduces the incentive for these users to collaborate.

Or, if you want to put it in a positive tone, the ability to enjoy and
test their modifications would grow the number of contributors.  More
"giving back in kind".  More tit-for-tat.

> Personally I feel that anything that exposes people to "Free
> Software" is a *BONUS*.

I don't think tivoized software qualifies as Free Software any more.

Sure, they still get the sources and that's still Free Software, but
the tivoized binaries aren't.

> Yes. Because a number of your "facts" are massively flawed.

Because you say so?  Even though you agree with points after claiming
to have shot them down?  Now that's rational!

> Now, please, you've proven to me that you can't, in fact, do any
> *objective* thinking about this topic.

/me hands Daniel a mirror

-- 
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}