Linux Online - News Comment

News Comment

All comments on news story: Torvalds should create a better GPL
It's a reply to comment:

:(	by: bim_bim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization i hope these developers at least grow and learn to communicate rather than being sarcastic. I doubt if those against GPLv3 can produce a better GPL or doubt if they have tried to understand the basic tenets of Free Software from whence GPL is also based upon. Whenever there are unclear things on GPLv2.0 or GPLv1.0 the last recourse are the 4 basic tenets of Free Software. If hardware is to limit what I can do on the software isn't that also unethical and limiting the GPL as a license ensuring one's freedom to study, modify, use, and distribute? I am amazed why Torvalds do not see the other side of the coin. What Tivo can do is have a hardware switch that will toggle to operate on Strict Mode (with signed security) and Free mode (disabled signed security). End of Story.

The GPLv3 "struggle"	by: fraboxo
Dear End Users of the Linux Kernel and GNU tools, I have been closely following the fierce debates over the new GPLv3 License and it's drafts —-with relation to the Linux Kernel-— and find the entire situation to be disgusting. Our community has been placed under undue stress from certain parties unwilling to negotiate to find a viable middle ground or solution. In the end it is we, the end users, who are to lose from this unnecessary and childish bickering which is clearly unproductive in nature. A lot of misinformation is deliberately being propagated by certain parties who (believe that they) have something to lose from the success of the GPLv3. It is not too difficult to see that the main source of this are commercial entities and the remaining parties are typically people funded by these entities. Defending commercial entities ability to create restrictions on our use of the Linux Kernel may make the Linux Kernel popular in the short run, but it will cause serious damage in the long run. Mr. Linus Torvalds, Linux Kernel Developers, please do not make hasty decisions. Short time gains will cause us long time pains. In order to better comprehend the situation it is important that we first fully recognize what is trying to be accomplished by the GPLv3. We must not be quick to judge nor generate a decision without fully understanding the different sides of the issue. Having understood what the GPLv3 is then it will become much more easy to understand why certain parties have taken a particular side of the ProGPLv3/ConGPLv3 “struggle”. The purpose of the GPL licensing scheme is to protect the end user by guaranteeing the end user's the ability to: 1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). 2. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). 4. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. (See: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html) The GPLv3 License is a natural and updated extension of the GPLv2. Those trying to "prove" that the GPLv3 is somehow different clearly have alterior hidden motives. These motives are: 1) To popularize the "Linux" Kernel on the commercial front at the expense of the common end user. 2) Some of the main differences between the two licenses is that the GPLv3 has added clauses that address further methods —-both in hardware (such as DRM) and in software-— that can restrict our rights. In an article Mr. Linus Torvalds is quoted as saying, “...cryptography is a good thing, the FSF is trying to restrict the use of it...”. Here it is obvious to see that Mr. Linus Torvalds is trying to show DRM as something that is not. DRM is used for cryptography in a specific fashion that limits the end user. Cryptography is a right, and an FSF that's against cryptography obviously wouldn't produce cryptographic code and programs themselves (such as "gpg"). I do not at all find it convincing that Mr. Linus Torvalds doesn't understand the purpose of DRM. The purpose of DRM is to create an environment that can not be modified or tampered with by the end user; this means us. A good example is the situation of the TiVo product. This product uses a Linux Kernel and ... using cryptography this company restricts the end user from being able to modify this GNU/Linux environment on this product. Furthermore, I find it a cheap attempt that Mr. Linus Torvalds would try to show that his method of creating a unique signature (via an encrypted key; generating a public key) is a type of DRM. Again, he's trying to show that DRM is something that it really isn't. Honestly, I don't believe that anybody cares about Mr. Linus Torvalds private key because (thanks to the GPLv2) we are able to completely modify the Linus Kernel without this key. The only purpose of this key is to “prove” that a particular version of the Linux Kernel was his official version. The situation with DRM and TiVo is completely different. Here the private key is used to guarantee that their product can not be modified. These two things are completely unrelated and trying to prove they are the same is trying to change the facts. Secondly, I do not find it believable that Mr. Torvalds thinks that the FSF is against cryptography. This seems like an obviously poor attempt to distract us from the main topic. I am astonished to see that he would make such a ludicrous statement implying and suggesting, and even worse flatout allegating that the FSF is against cryptography. The FSF is concerned about end users rights, and this means that the FSF fully supports the right for the end user to encrypt their data. This is obviously why they produce GPG. In another interview Mr. Linus Torvalds says, “...the FSF is restricting what the end user can do with Linux...”. The question is has Mr. Linus Torvalds definition of “End User” changed? Is a commercial entities right to reduce our freedoms more important? What's the source of this change? It seems that Mr. Linus Torvalds is more concerned about freedom of commercial entities to restrict the end users freedoms; it's not the other way around. Personally, I find the definition of “End User” to be the final customer of a product, and not the producer of the product, nor the middleman packager. The only restriction I see is for a company to restrict our rights. I understand that being funded by certain commercial companies might make certain Linux Kernel developers feel "obligated" to "defend" and/or "support" their sponsors, however, please be careful what you wish for. Remember that you are deciding our fate together with this. You may get "bonus points" from these sponsors, the Linux Kernel may become more popular on the commercial front on the short term, however, it will eventualy become a serious problem for all of us. --Franco

Re: The GPLv3	by: KnuxT15
To Franco: Please see my reply to your identical message on http://www.linux.org/news/2006/09/30/0003.html (haha I forgot to copy the message before submitting)