Re:Undoing DRM consistent with philosophy of GPLv2
Posted by: lordcorusa
on January 30, 2006 10:41 AM
So, in my original post I said:
<snip>Each version of the GPL has put certain restrictions on redistribution, whereas the other two licenses [BSD and MIT] put virtually no restrictions on redistribution.
RMS and the FSF have always stated that users should be free to do anything with the software, anything except restrict other users' freedom to do anything with the software. That was the whole point of the restrictions in any version of the GPL, including GPLv2.</snip>
You quoted a different area of my post, then commented as though you were rebutting me:
The GPL has never allowed users to do whatever they want with the software, for if they wish to modify and redistribute it they have to agree to a very complicated (read: need attorneys to review) set of terms. It places considerably more restrictions than the BSD/X11 family of licenses for example.
However, you put a different spin on my words. You implied that is is a bad thing that one person cannot simply redistribute GPL-licensed material under whatever terms that person wants. Yes, the modified BSD and MIT licenses allow this and are Free Software licenses, but they don't guarantee that all users of the software are given equal freedom. To do that, a more complex license is necessary. I think I covered this well in the grandparent post, if you read it all.
In other words, your argument is that the US Constitution is no good because it is too complicated and requires a lawyer or a judge to interpret it. Also, the US Constitution does not offer me full freedom, because the 13th Amendment doesn't allow me to enslave others. Why couldn't the US Constitution just say "People are free to do what they want" and be done with it?
<snip>So we now have a GPL which is substantially less pragmatic and more idealistic than v2, and moreover the DRM and patent provisions add substantial complexity which is anathema for in-house corporate lawyers who are trained to minimize their companies' exposure to risk</snip>
As I explained in the grandparent post, this draft of the GPLv3 is no more or less idealistic than its predecessors.
When you say pragmatism, I assume you mean popularity, as in a pragmatic license is popular with corporate developers. Or in other words, a pragmatic license will allow corporations to quietly insert unfree patented methods, unfree DRM, and many other unfree concepts into our (once-upon-a-time) Free Software. Stallman has on many occasions stated how he never made the GPL to be a popular license for corporations. He made it to ensure that all users of the software had an equal level of freedom, and to this end, the proposed draft of the GPLv3 ensures this admirably given recent threats to the GPLv2.
One thing that bothers me is that you keep implying that programmers can't possibly understand the proposed license. You will probably point to Linus' "misunderstanding" of the provision regarding DRM keys as proof of this. Personally, I had no trouble interpreting all of the new provisions in a few hours of reading, even though some of them are currently poorly written and will likely be improved in subsequent drafts. It is my feeling that any developer with the patience and intelligence to understand a modern, complex piece of software (like a kernel) should be able to put his skills to work understanding basic copyright/patent law and the proposed license's language. It really isn't that hard, if you can tear yourself away from your code for a few hours. I think Linus simply didn't read the proposed license that carefully, if at all, because he has no reason to. See my next point for clarification.
I doubt that Linux will be the only major project that has issues with the changes.
Actually, this license never would have affected the Linux kernel, because no matter his personal feelings about it, Linus can never relicense the kernel under any new license. Finding and obtaining the necessary permissions from the thousands of contributors over the years, many of whom are out of contact, deceased, or just plain unknown, would be virtually impossible. So, with respect to the Linux kernel, the GPLv3 or any other license is a moot point.
Furthermore, I think few other GPLed software products will have a problem with the proposed license, as most of them already have the "or any later version" clause in their license. I think most Free Software projects that have already chosen the GPL have chosen it for the right reasons (freedom, not popularity) and will therefore understand the improvements in this draft of GPLv3.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Undoing DRM consistent with philosophy of GPLv2
Posted by: lordcorusa on January 30, 2006 10:41 AMIn other words, your argument is that the US Constitution is no good because it is too complicated and requires a lawyer or a judge to interpret it. Also, the US Constitution does not offer me full freedom, because the 13th Amendment doesn't allow me to enslave others. Why couldn't the US Constitution just say "People are free to do what they want" and be done with it?As I explained in the grandparent post, this draft of the GPLv3 is no more or less idealistic than its predecessors.
When you say pragmatism, I assume you mean popularity, as in a pragmatic license is popular with corporate developers. Or in other words, a pragmatic license will allow corporations to quietly insert unfree patented methods, unfree DRM, and many other unfree concepts into our (once-upon-a-time) Free Software. Stallman has on many occasions stated how he never made the GPL to be a popular license for corporations. He made it to ensure that all users of the software had an equal level of freedom, and to this end, the proposed draft of the GPLv3 ensures this admirably given recent threats to the GPLv2.
One thing that bothers me is that you keep implying that programmers can't possibly understand the proposed license. You will probably point to Linus' "misunderstanding" of the provision regarding DRM keys as proof of this. Personally, I had no trouble interpreting all of the new provisions in a few hours of reading, even though some of them are currently poorly written and will likely be improved in subsequent drafts. It is my feeling that any developer with the patience and intelligence to understand a modern, complex piece of software (like a kernel) should be able to put his skills to work understanding basic copyright/patent law and the proposed license's language. It really isn't that hard, if you can tear yourself away from your code for a few hours. I think Linus simply didn't read the proposed license that carefully, if at all, because he has no reason to. See my next point for clarification.Actually, this license never would have affected the Linux kernel, because no matter his personal feelings about it, Linus can never relicense the kernel under any new license. Finding and obtaining the necessary permissions from the thousands of contributors over the years, many of whom are out of contact, deceased, or just plain unknown, would be virtually impossible. So, with respect to the Linux kernel, the GPLv3 or any other license is a moot point.
Furthermore, I think few other GPLed software products will have a problem with the proposed license, as most of them already have the "or any later version" clause in their license. I think most Free Software projects that have already chosen the GPL have chosen it for the right reasons (freedom, not popularity) and will therefore understand the improvements in this draft of GPLv3.
#