Well, what do you think? If you want to dispute it, we can discuss it on
the mailing list; I've CC'ed the list on this reply. Personally I am in
favour of the GPL3, (but here we are proposing to use GPL2+ instead of
arguably GPL 2 only; not GPL3), because:
- It fixes the problems with the ASL2.
- We are not creating something which is commercial, or so generic as
to be politically neutral. If we choose to upgrade to GPL3 -
which if everyone agrees to GPL2+ will not have to be a unanimous
decision, but I suppose a board decision (although we will seek
consensus), I don't see the anti-DRM clause as being a problem.
- The patent issues are overblown. Strong patent clauses can be included
as options, but the default is equivalent to an implicit patent
license. Personally I think strong patent clauses are entirely
proportionate to the threat!
- I trust the FSF.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 08:28:54PM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi
>
> The message below is quoted from the linux kernel mailing list. It looks at
> GPLv2 from
> the point of view of why its a good thing. Its an interesting perspective on
> the question
> of liciences.
>
> Ed
>
> ---------------------
> An Ode to GPLv2 (was Re: GPLv3 Position Statement)
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at osdl.org>
> To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>
>
> One of the reasons I didn't end up signing the GPLv3 position statement
> that James posted (and others had signed up for), was that a few weeks ago
> I had signed up for writing another kind of statement entirely: not so
> much about why I dislike the GPLv3, but why I think the GPLv2 is so great.
>
> (There were other reasons too, but never mind that.)
>
> I didn't get my fat arse off the ground on that, partly exactly because
> the developer poll of "which is better" which was related to that issue
> distracted me, but mostly because I just seldom write that kind of text -
> one thing the kernel work has conditioned me for is that I write _replies_
> to email, I seldom start threads myself (I suspect most of my emails on
> linux-kernel that aren't replies are just release announcements).
>
> However, since there was a sub-thread on groklaw about the kernel
> developers opinions on the GPLv3, and since I did try to explain it there
> (as a reply to postings by PJ and others), and since some of those
> explanations ended up being exactly the "why the GPLv2 is so insanely
> great" that I never wrote otherwise, I thought I'd just repost that
> explanation as an alternative view.
>
> So this post is kind of another way to look at the whole GPLv3 issues: not
> caring so much about why the GPLv3 is worse, but a much more positive "Why
> the GPLv2 is _better_". I suspect some people may have an easier time
> seeing and reading that argument, since it's not as contentious.
>
> A lot of people seem to think that the GPLv2 is showing its age, but I
> would argue otherwise. Yes, the GPLv2 is "old" for being a copyright
> license, but it's not even that you don't want to mess with something that
> works - it's that it very fundamentally is such a good license that
> there's not a whole lot of room for fixing aside from pure wording issues.
>
> So without further ado, here's my personal "reply" to the the GPLv3
> position statement. It's obviously not meant to repudiate James' text in
> any way, it's just an alternate view on the same questions..
>
> I made other posts in the same thread on Groklaw thread, not as positive,
> and not perhaps as worthy and quotable. This one may be a bit out of
> context, but I do think it stands on its own, and you can see the full
> thread in the "GPL Upheld in Germany Against D-Link" discussions on
> Groklaw. The particular sub-thread was on what happens since we can't
> easily change update the license, called "So What is the Future Then?"
>
> (I'd like to point to the groklaw posts, but there doesn't seem to be any
> way to point to a particular comment without getting "The URL from Hell",
> so it's easier to just duplicate it here).
>
> ????????????????Linus
>
> ---
>
> And thus spake PJ in response:
> ? ?"GPLv2 is not compatible with the Apache license. ?It doesn't cover
> ? ? Bitstream. ?It is ambiguous about web downloads. ?It allows Tivo to
> ? ? forbid modification. ?It has no patent protection clause. ?It isn't
> ? ? internationally useful everywhere, due to not matching the terms of
> ? ? art used elsewhere. ?It has no DMCA workaround or solution. ?It is
> ? ? silent about DRM."
>
> Exactly!
>
> That's why the GPLv2 is so great. ?Exactly because it doesn't bother or
> talk about anything else than the very generic issue of "tit-for-tat".
>
> You see it as a failure. ?I see it as a huge advantage. ?The GPLv2 covers
> the only thing that really matters, and the only thing that everybody can
> agree on ("tit-for-tat" is really something everybody understands, and
> sees the same way - it's totally independent of any moral judgement and
> any philosophical, cultural or economic background).
>
> The thing is, exactly because the GPLv2 is not talking about the details,
> but instead talks entirely about just a very simple issue, people can get
> together around it. ?You don't have to believe in the FSF or the tooth
> fairy to see the point of the GPLv2. ?It doesn't matter if you're black or
> white, commercial or non-commercial, man or woman, an individual or a
> corporation - you understand tit-or-tat.
>
> And that's also why legal details don't matter. ?Changes in law won't
> change the notion of "same for same". ?A change of language doesn't change
> "Quid pro quo". ?We can still say "quid pro quo" two thousand years later,
> in a language that has been dead for centuries, and the saying is still
> known by any half-educated person in the world.
>
> And that's exactly because the concept is so universal, and so
> fundamental, and so basic.
>
> And that is why the GPLv2 is a great license.
>
> I can't stress that enough. ?Sure, other licenses can say the same thing,
> but what the GPLv2 did was to be the first open-source license that made
> that "tit-for-tat" a legal license that was widely deployed. That's
> something that the FSF and rms should be proud of, rather than trying to
> ruin by adding all these totally unnecessary things that are ephemeral,
> and depend on some random worry of the day.
>
> That's also why I ended up changing the kernel license to the GPLv2. The
> original Linux source license said basically: "Give all source back, and
> never charge any money". ?It took me a few months, but I realized that the
> "never charge any money" part was just asinine. ?It wasn't the point. ?
> The point was always "give back in kind".
>
> Btw, on a personal note, I can even tell you where that "never charge any
> money" requirement came from. ?It came from my own frustrations with Minix
> as a poor student, where the cost of getting the system ($169 USD back
> then) was just absolutely prohibitive. ?I really disliked having to spend
> a huge amount of money (to me) for something that I just needed to make my
> machine useful.
>
> In other words, my original license very much had a "fear and loathing"
> component to it. ?It was exactly that "never charge any money" part. But I
> realized that in the end, it was never really about the money, and that
> what I really looked for in a license was the "fairness" thing.
>
> And that's what the GPLv2 is. ?It's "fair". ?It asks everybody -
> regardless of circumstance - for the same thing. ?It asks for the effort
> that was put into improving the software to be given back to the common
> good. ?You can use the end result any way you want (and if you want to use
> it for "bad" things, be my guest), but we ask the same exact thing of
> everybody - give your modifications back.
>
> That's true grace. ?Realizing that the petty concerns don't matter,
> whether they are money or DRM, or patents, or anything else.
>
> And that's why I chose the GPLv2. ?I did it back when the $169 I paid for
> Minix still stung me, because I just decided that that wasn't what it was
> all about.
>
> And I look at the additions to the GPLv3, and I still say: "That's not
> what it's all about".
>
> My original license was petty and into details. ?I don't need to go back
> to those days. ?I found a better license. ?And it's the GPLv2.
>
> ????????????????????????Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at ?http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> ---------------------
> On Saturday 23 September 2006 11:53, toad wrote:
> > Linus's insistence that if it is not specified, then the default is GPL
> > 2 only, is part of the reason why we are doing this. One of the
> > advantages of GPL 3 is that it solves compatibility problems with
> > various licenses, many of which are widely used for java related code,
> > for example ASL2 (we would like to use some ASL2 code in Freenet, the
> > Apache Commons Compress library).
> >
> > We may want to upgrade to GPL3 only in future, for compatibility
> > reasons, but for the time being the proposal is that we make it
> > explicitly "GPL 2 or later". We should have this discussion on the
> > mailing list, so I have CC'ed it; where did you get the below PDF from?
> > Nobody has responded to my original mailing list post.
> >
> > In terms of specifics... The FSF has always been political. It has
> > sharply defined political goals. "DRM abuse", as they call it, is a
> > direct threat to the FSF's political goals as expressed in the GPL2,
> > and so they have reacted to it. Software patents likewise: IBM is trying
> > to have its cake and eat it too: Funding linux on the one hand, and
> > campaigning for ever stronger and wider software patents on the other
> > hand in order to suborn Linux and make it *impossible* to develop it
> > without corporate patronage; this could reasonably be termed (legal)
> > theft. Freenet is also political...
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 09:58:11AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Have you seen this?
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > On Friday 22 September 2006 14:57, you wrote:
> > > > Hi, I am trying to clarify a minor licensing issue with Freenet 0.7.
> > > > Since you contributed to it, I must ask: At the time of your commits, it
> > > > was not clear whether Freenet was GPL 2 or later, or just GPL 2. We
> > > > would like it to be GPL 2 or later, so we can transparently upgrade to
> > > > GPL 3 if necessary (it has various advantages, the most practical of
> > > > which being that it is compatible with various other free licenses such
> > > > as the Apache Software License). The code will remain GPL 2 for the time
> > > > being (GPL 3 isn't even out yet), but we want it to be forward
> > > > compatible if possible. Could you please either:
> > > > a) Tell me that you support the code being "GPL 2 or later"
> > > > b) Tell me that you don't (Ideally with reasons!)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060926/62c8dab4/attachment.pgp>
