From eMusic to ewMusic

I thought these people were the good guys?

Intellectual Monopoly Manumission

It was a custom for Romans, in their wills, to free some of their slaves. Neil Gaiman's post about problems with intellectual monopolies after the death of a writer prompts me to suggest a similar manumission for their works. It would be simple to arrange and a fitting point at which to liberate creations. (Via Copyfight.)

The European Computer Driving What?

The European Computer Driving Licence is not a joke, despite its Monty Python-ish name. More to the point:

The ECDL Foundation will now include a module on the use of Sun's Star Office Writer, Calc and Base applications for word processing, spreadsheets and database work.

So, shame on me that I've never heard of it, and good on them for creeping out from under the Redmond shadow, albeit only a smidgeon.

Here's the Jot - Where's the Tittle?

So, Google has bought JotSpot, and adds wikis to its growing collection of office tools. Who's next?

A Triptych of Science Opens

Here's a man after my own heart:

I've never had an idea that couldn't be improved by sharing it with as many people as possible -- and I don't think anyone else has, either. That's why I have become interested in the various "Open" movements making increasing inroads into the practice of modern science. Here I will try to give a brief introduction to Open Access to research literature; in the second instalment I will look at ways in which the same concept of "openness" is being extended to encompass data as well as publications, and beyond that, what a fully Open practice of science might look like.

(Via Open Access News.)

DRM.info - not about Digital Rights Management

An entire site about Digital Rights Management sounds like some torture from the Spanish Inquisition. But the fact that DRM.info is not a site about Digital Rights Management but Digital Restrictions Management gives a clue as to why its rather more tolerable: it's not exactly for the idea.

It comes from the Free Software Foundation Europe, and is designed presumably to catalogue the deletorious effects of DRM, offering them up as a warning and stimulus to remedial action.

Larry, to (Verb)

An interesting post from Mr Carr, notable as much for its title - "Larrying Wikipedia" - as for the idea it encapsulates:

Why, in other words, hasn’t anyone done to Wikipedia what Larry Ellison last week did to RedHat?

An (Open) Source of Endorphins

Somewhat belatedly, scientists are localising the physical basis for the kind of altruism that lies at the heart of the opens:

They found that the part of the brain that was active when a person donated happened to be the brain's reward centre—the mesolimbic pathway, to give it its proper name—responsible for doling out the dopamine-mediated euphoria associated with sex, money, food and drugs. Thus the warm glow that accompanies charitable giving has a physiological basis.

Via Technocrat.

Cory's Big Idea

Cory Doctorow has given some details about a course he is running:

an undergrad class about DRM, EULAs, copyright, technology and control in the 21st century, called "Pwned: Is everyone on this campus a copyright criminal?"

No, wait, even if you can't stand the Cory.

The course itself is pretty conventional. But this, frankly, seems brilliant:

The main class assignment is to work through Wikipedia entries on subjects we cover in the class, in groups, identifying weak areas in the Wikipedia sections and improving them, then defending those improvements in the message-boards for the Wikipedia entries.

What if every university course did the same, tidying up Wikipedia entries that were sub-par? Think about it.

Stern but Fair

The conclusions of the Stern Review will not come as any surprise to readers of this blog:

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

But as I commented before about a similar case, what makes this report so important is that it coming from the establishment, not from groups who would be expected to make statements like that above. It is also meticulous in detailing the situation. Kudos to the UK Government for commissioning it - and for making it freely available.

Despite its portentous message, I find its appearance - and of an increasing number of similar reports - strangely heartening: I can't help feeling that we are close to not one but two tipping points.

The first is catastrophic, when the earth's environmental system is so far out of kilter that it changes dramatically; the second is rather more positive - the moment when enough people get what is going on, and start doing something effective to avert or at least mitigate the effects of the first tipping point.

Maybe I'm just an incurable optimist, but I was particularly pleased to read this point:

The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector. Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions; largescale international pilot programmes to explore the best ways to do this could get underway very quickly.

Halting deforestation seems a way not only to slow down global warming, but to address many other issues like species loss and even poverty. I say let's do it. Please?

From the Mist

The Citizendium project is nothing if not intriguing. The drip-feed of information about it doesn't hurt in terms of provoking interest. Here's the latest two installments from Dr. Sanger: Why Make Room for Experts in Web 2.0? and The Role of Content Brokers in the Era of Free Content. I've not had time to digest them yet, but Larry writes well and interestingly, so they're likely to be worth reading.

Googly Earthy Mashups

And talking of Google Earth mashups, here's a fascinating list of speculations about what might be coming or, at least, possible.

Wikipedia in Google Earth

As I've mentioned before, mashups are all about the underlying mesh. And what better mesh for knowledge than Google Earth? And what better to mash it with Wikipedia? Here you are, then. (Via Openpedia.org.)

Larry's Unbreakable Kite

What do you want if you are worth $18 billion and have the third-largest motor yacht in the world? Simple: revenge.

Oracle's Unbreakable Linux is about revenge - for the fact that Red Hat dared to snatch JBoss from under Larry Ellison's nose. It's a warning that you don't mess with lovely Larry. It's also a bit of kite-flying: maybe offering support for Red Hat is a viable business, though I can't see it myself. In any case, even if Unbreakable fails as a service, it's already succeeded as a punishment.

Update: Ha!

IBM Gets Open Source Religion - Seriously

A post on Bob Sutor's blog points to IBM's mega-site devoted to open source. Interesting enough, but even more interesting his comment on it:

It’s hard to think of any part of IBM’s business that is not now affected by open source

One of the first, but certainly not the last.

Learning about OpenLearn

I wrote some while back about the Open University's plans to offer its materials as open courseware. Its dedicated site, called OpenLearn, is now up and running, with lots of interesting content. The licence? - a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence.

You Win Some, You Lose Some

Mixed news on the UK patent front:

The Court of Appeal has ruled on two cases involving software patents today. It rejected one and unfortunately granted the other. It was hoped that the ruling would confirm that software development which relates only to new business logic does not have to worry about patent threats. As more and more companies in the United States get tied up in business method patent litigation, this decision should be a big worry for UK companies.

Full details here.

Viral Evolution

As a big fan of the explanatory power of Darwinian evolution - which, for those still concerned about its "theoretical" status, is basically just maths - I have to say I'm impressed by this story:

SpamThru takes the game to a new level, actually using an anti-virus engine against potential rivals.

Of course, this is precisely the same strategy that baby cuckoos use. Self-standing, evolving computer viruses living across the Net are getting ever closer....

DRM'ing It into People

One of the central problems with DRM is that it is hard to know how to fight back. Boycotting DRM'ed goods is all very well, but needs lots of people taking part to make an impact. This means that getting out the fact that many consumer products are Defective by Design is crucially important. Against this background, here's a clever idea: tagging DRM'ed products on Amazon. Fight force with cunning. (Via Boing Boing.)

Peer-Reviewed Wikis Are Like Buses...

...you wait for ages and then two come along at once.

First we had Citizendium, now here's Scholarpedia. The dynamics are slightly different, and it will be fascinating to watch their respective evolution. In particular, it will be great to see online Darwinism in action as these two and Wikipedia fight it out from their respective positions.

(Partial) Digital Freedom

Although this Digital Freedom Campaign is highly partial - in both sense of the word - in that it's totally US-centric as far as I can tell, the groups supporting it seem to be right ones. Whether its dinky Flash videos (grrr) make a fig of difference to what is, after all, a global problem, remains to be seen. (Via Open Access News.)

The Oracle Speaks

Oracle's announcement of its "unbreakable" GNU/Linux has provoked plenty of comment from around the blogosphere. I've not had a chance to mull it all over yet (not least because I've been up at the LinuxWorld show, where I spent some time talking to a man from Oracle....). In the meantime, you can find plenty of interesting analysis via Technorati.

Firefox 3.0, Firefox 4.0

Firefox 2.0 is so 2006....

NOC, NOC: Who's There?

To my eternal shame the UK is not exactly at the forefront of free software adoption, not least because Our Glorious Tone seems as dazzled by the business and intellectual achievements of Bill Gates as he is by the social and political ones of George W. Bush. But apparently we are to get our very own National Open Centre. I'm not holding my breath for massive open source uptake, but it's a start.

Bruce Schneier, the Man from BT???

Say it ain't true, Bruce:

Britain's BT Group has snapped up United States-based Counterpane Internet Security for a sum of more than $20 million as part of a continuing commitment to the security offering and overall growth of its Global Services business.

Counterpane provides managed network security services.

As part of the deal, Counterpane's founder, CTO and highly regarded security guru, Bruce Schneier, will join the BT payroll. Schneier will maintain his position as CTO within Counterpane, based in Mountain View, Calif.

Bruce Schneier, security god, meets BT, ex-monopolistic monster.

Ah, well, I suppose you deserve the dosh, if nothing else.

Harnad on Open Access and Open Source

The high priest of open access, Steve Harnard, has some thoughts on how open access and open source relate to each other - and how they don't. He also uses this analogy:

I am personally in favour of open-code pharmacology ("OP"): The formula for potential cures should not be kept secret, or prevented from being used to sell or even give away the medicine.

It does *not* follow from this, however, that if a commercial pharmaceutical company develops a non-OP cure for AIDS today that I will refuse to use it or promote it! Nor will I try to suppress or refuse to cooperate with OP research or OP researchers, while there are still diseases and patients, needing to be cured now.

The reason this is different from the situation with open source is that for the latter you (as in an idealised "you") always have the option of sitting down and writing some free code. You do not really have this possibility when it comes to inventing drugs.

Turkish and Pakistani Delight

It's all-too easy to forget that free software is a truly global phenomenon. So these stories, one from Turkey, the other from Pakistan, are a timely reminder of how much is happening beyond the glare of the anglophone media.

Both are about the public sector being encouraged to turn towards open source software. Both have interesting sites associated with them. In Turkey, there is the home-grown Pardus distribution, while in Pakistan there is an information site called FOSSFP: The Free and Open Source Software Movement.

Open Biology Meets Open Source Meets Open Access

Talking of titles, this one sounds pretty germane: Source Code for Biology and Medicine. Here's some more information:

Source Code for Biology and Medicine is a peer-reviewed open access, online journal that publishes articles on source code employed over a wide range of applications in biology and medicine. The aim of the journal is to publish source code for distribution and use in the public domain in order to advance biological and medical research. Through this dissemination, it may be possible to shorten the time required for solving certain computational problems for which there is limited source code availability or resources.

(Via nodalpoint.org.)

International Journal of the Commons

What a fab name for a journal. The sponsoring body

IASC is an association devoted to understanding and improving institutions for the management of environmental resources that are (or could be) held or used collectively. Many will refer to such resources and their systems of usage as "commons".

Given the subject-matter, it will come as no surprise that the new title will be adding to the commons that is open content. (Via Open Access News.)

Star(Office) Burst

Here's an interesting little Google map, showing where StarOffice is being used in academic institutions in Italy. OK, so it's a little recondite, but the point is there's a lot of StarOffice about. And as we know from Apple's history, if you get them young, you get them old.... (Via Erwin's StarOffice Tango.)

G8 vs. WIPO?

Here's a tiny little straw in the intellectual monopoly wind:

During their next meeting the G8 governments should engage those of the five newly industrialized countries the People's Republic of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico in talks about intellectual property, representatives of the German federal government elucidating the proposed agenda for the next G8 summit meeting in June said during a briefing while commenting on the latter's motto "Growth and Responsibility."

And why is that interesting? Well, because

Oliver Moldenhauer of Netzwerk Freies Wissen [Free Knowledge Network] told heise online that he thought the G8 summit was not the proper forum for discussing intellectual property rights. "The G8 are made up almost exclusively of rich industrial countries. The interest they have in this dialogue is likely to consist above all in putting pressure on the newly industrialized ones," he said. In the opinion of Mr. Moldenhauer other forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the World Health Organization (WHO) are better suited to the task.

And why has G8 suddenly gone off its darling WIPO? Well,

the industrialized countries suffered a setback at the WIPO General Assembly in September. The newly industrialized countries had countered calls for further harmonization by demanding that such harmonization go hand in hand with, for example, improvements in the quality of the process by which patents are granted and effective protection of traditional knowledge against possibly unfair exploitation by international companies.

Hm, maybe I need to change my views on WIPO....

Real Life: The Review

Talking of RL and SL, this extremely witty piece is deeper than you might think:

Volumes have already been written about real life, the most accessible and most widely accepted massively multiplayer online role-playing game to date. Featuring believable characters, plenty of lasting appeal, and a lot of challenge and variety, real life is absolutely recommendable to those who've grown weary of all the cookie-cutter games that have tried to emulate its popularity--or to just about anyone, really.

(Via Web 2.0 Blog Network.)

Unreal Mashups

This is getting seriously weird.

DestroyTV lets RLers watch an island in SL, using an embedded video camera (which is "in" both SL and RL). There are also screenshots (several thousand of them), over on Flickr, complete with a tag cloud. So which world are we in now?

Designing Business for an Open World

It's interesting to note the number of pamphlets that are being written as primers, explaining this wacky open stuff to "normal" people. Here's another one:

How do you do business with an illusive network that belongs to nobody? How do you work with talented people you are likely never to meet and who are not motivated by money? How can businesses learn to “take advantage of” innovation when it comes along in an open-platform world?

And on another level, are we seeing the beginning of the end for the existing business models based on hierarchy, planning and management, and pure competition?

We are in fact seeing a new level of change. What are the indicators? The rise of open-source development communities. The growth of an on-line knowledge commons. A shift of power to socially and technologically connected “smart mobs.” And many more.

Nothing new, but handy for the boss.

Law is a Real Problem in the Virtual World

If you think laws are a problem in the real world, wait until you start thinking about the virtual one. Here's what one person has decided:

I think that the entire range of common law rights needs to be viewed as applicable to virtual worlds -- property included.

Heavy stuff - but not something that we can avoid confronting as our second lives start to take on ever-more importance alongside our first ones.

Firefox: the Breakthrough

This is it. Just look at these dynamics:

The number of businesses allowing employees to download the Firefox Web browser soared this year, and at least one analyst believes the recently released Internet Explorer 7 could boost use of Firefox in companies.

Fully, 44 percent of businesses with 250 employees or more allow workers to download Mozilla Corp.'s open-source browser at the office, according to a survey conducted this year by JupiterResearch. Last year, only 26 percent of such businesses were willing to do the same.

So, we're through the crucial stage, where Firefox is only downloaded by enthusiasts, to that of corporate acceptance. That's good, but even better is the timing:

For many businesses, the move to Vista could take a year and a half or more, analysts say.

As a result, many people who get IE 7 at home through Microsoft's automatic update service will likely find IE6 lacking. Without the option of installing IE 7 at work, they are likely to turn to Firefox, Wilcox said.

Yee-ha, as they say.

GPLv3: What Richard Stallman Said

More than anyone else, Richard Stallman is driving the GPLv3 debate (although Eben Moglen is clearly another crucially important figure). What follows is a transcript of a short interview that took place on 6 October, 2006. In it, RMS talked about the issues that lie behind the GPLv3, and gave his thoughts on the concerns expressed by the Linux coders, some of which were raised in the posting below.

Could you give a little background to the drafting of the GNU GPLv3?

The purpose of the GNU GPL is to defend for all users the freedoms that define free software. It doesn't make sense in terms of open source. It's the result of implementing the philosophy of free software in the most strong way that we can. So all the version of the GPL have prevented middlemen from restricting subsequent users by changing the licence. Some free software licences permit that, for example the X11 licence permits that. The various BSD licences permit that. But the GPL was specifically designed not to permit that - you cannot add restrictions making the program non free.

Now, what we didn't have 15 years ago was the threat of making the program effectively non free by technical restrictions placed around it. That's what Tivoisation is. Tivoisation means taking a free program and distributing a binary of it, and also providing the source, because the GPL requires that. But when the user changes the source code and compiles it and then tries to install the changed program he discovers that that's impossible because the machine is designed not to let him.

The result of this is that freedom number 1, the freedom to study the source code and change it so the program does what you want, has become a sham. Tivoisation is essentially a way to formally comply with the requirement, but not in substance.

So we've come to the conclusion that this is more than just a minor issue. That this will be common, probably the usual case, if we don't do something to stop it. And therefore we've decided to do what is necessary so that our software will not be Tivoised. Our purpose is to deliver freedom to the user.

Why do you think there has been such an outcry in some quarters recently?

I don't know. A few people are upset.

A few people including most of the key kernel coders...

Their business. That's their program and they can decide whether to use this licence.

Seems clear they will stick with GPLv2?

I hope not, but if they do it's up to them.

If that happens, is that going to cause any problems for GNU?

It won't cause any problems for us, only for the public. The problem it will cause is Tivoisation. It will cause the problem that users don't have the freedoms that they should have. And that's a very big problem, but it's not a problem specifically for us, it's a problem for everyone. The problem is that many people will get machines in which Linux has been Tivoised. Which means that for practical purposes it won't be free for them.

If that happens, would you put more effort into the Hurd?

I don't think so, and the reason is that wouldn't achieve much unless we convinced everyone to switch to the Hurd from Linux, and that isn't too likely. The Hurd still has some technical problems, and who knows if it would ever become a competitor. But suppose somebody wanted to Tivoise, and he had available the Hurd and Linux to choose from, and Linux permits Tivoisation and the Hurd doesn't: the solution would be to use Linux.

Some people make the argument that if GPLv3 is applied to Linux, companies might simply adopt a different operating system for their products.

I don't think so.

You don't think they might use BSD or Windows?

They might, who knows? I don't think it's very likely, but the main point is it's no use giving up on a fight because you might lose, not when the fight is for something very important like freedom.

Is there anything you can do to assuage concerns of the kernel coders without giving up your principles?

I don't know. If they would just speak with us. we can explore that possibility.

Are they not doing that?

Basically no. Just recently we have had a couple of communications with them, not yet reaching the stage of being entirely civil in tone, but at least it's a start. We've been inviting them to talk with us since before we started publishing drafts, but they have not for the most part taken up that offer. In general they've made statements to the public instead of to us. And some of them are based on misunderstandings of the draft and of our intention. They're talking to each other not to us. But it's not too late for them to start if they wish to talk to us.

Is there scope to rephrase the clause that deals with Tivoisation?

We can rephrase it in a lot of different ways. We just recently decided on a change, which is that the requirement for keys would no longer work by calling them part of the corresponding source. This is a change in the details, but the substance is the same, the aim is the same - to change that would be giving up.

The two philosophies of free software and open source in some cases lead to similar conduct - in fact, in many cases. That's why it was so easy for the people who support open source to apply their label to what we're doing. Because if you're participating in a free software project it usually doesn't matter whether your goal is to give users freedom and to establish freedom in cyberspace or just have powerful and reliable software, because either way you could do the same things. And there's no need for people to ask each other: What's your philosophy, why do you want to contribute to this project? - they just start contributing, and they work on making the software better, and they focus on that.

But there are cases where these two different philosophies lead to different results. For instance, some people have proposed what they call “open source DRM” - DRM meaning “digital restrictions management”. This is a plan to develop software to put in machines that will restrict users, and then publish the source code of this. The idea is that programmers around the world will work together making that software do its job better, that is, restrict the user more inescapably, more reliably, more powerfully. Although the source code of this software will be published, they plan to use Tivoisation to make sure that the users can't escape from their power.

Now, if your goal is to give the users freedom, restricting the users through open source is no more tolerable than restricting the users any other way, because the users have to have the freedom.

Have you tried talking to TiVo about this?

No.

You don't think it might be useful?

No, not really. And the reason is they're just the first example. If it were only that one company that were the problem, we probably wouldn't pay attention because it would be a small problem. But the idea is floating around, and there are many different plans to use it.

Couldn't you help TiVo do what they want to do with free software?

They initially did. This Tivoisation was not in the first TiVo box. The point is, it's pressure from Hollywood. And the best way to have a chance of negotiating something with those who are under the pressure is first to set up counter pressure.

The problem being that a hacked version of TiVo could circumvent any DRM?

Exactly. And the point is, DRM itself is evil. Restricting the user's freedom in other ways so that the user cannot change the software and get rid of DRM makes the software effectively not free for that user. So we have these two philosophies, and here they make a big difference. You can imagine open source DRM, and if all you care about are the philosophical values of open source, you might think it's great. If you only want software to be powerful and reliable, you might tend to apply that to software whose purpose is to go in somebody's machine and restrict it, and you might think, “Sure I'll help you make that powerful and reliable.” But if you believe in free software, and you think that the user whose machine it is should be in control of what that machine does and not somebody else, then the aim of that project becomes wrong in itself. Free software DRM makes no sense - it's a contradiction in terms.

Are you worried about the prospect of GPL projects forking?

It can happen. But again, there's no use not fighting, there's no use surrendering to this threat. It's too dangerous.

Are there any other points you'd like to make?

There are people who seem to imagine that some disaster will happen because some programs in the GNU/Linux system are using GPLv3 and some are using GPLv2, but in fact there are many programs with other licences in the system as well, and there's no problem there at all.

There are many people who would like to come across some disastrous flaw in GPLv3. If one person says he's found it, the others repeat it without stopping to make sure it is for real, because they consider it the answer to their prayers.

But you think they'll work together without problems?

I know they will, because these programs are separate programs, and the licence of one has no effect on the licence of another.

Now, I wish that everyone would switch to GPLv3 because that would give the strongest possible front to resist Tivoisation and ensure the freedom of the users. But I know that not everybody will participate, nonetheless we have to try to defend the freedom.

Happy hacking.

Update

Richard Stallman has sent me a comment on Alan Cox's reply:

While I addressed the topic you proposed--version 3 of the GNU General Public License--Alan Cox chose instead to present a misleading picture of the history of GNU and Linux.

The GNU/Linux system comes out of the effort that I began in 1983 to develop a complete free Unix-like system called GNU. GNU is the only operating system that was developed specifically to respect computer users' freedom. Since our goal was to achieve freedom as soon as possible, we utilized the scattered existing free software packages that would fit. That still left most of the components for us to write. In those years, we of the GNU Project systematically developed the essential components of this system, plus many other desirable components, ranging from libraries to text editors to games.

In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed a kernel called Linux--initially not free software, but he freed it in 1992. At that time, the GNU system was complete except for a kernel. The combination of Linux and the GNU system was the first complete free operating system. That combination is GNU/Linux.

Cox says that Linux is not part of the GNU Project. That is true--of the kernel, Linux, that he and Torvalds have worked on. But the combined system that Cox calls "Linux" is more our work than his.

When Cox says that "FSF-copyrighted code is a minority in [GNU/Linux]", that too is misleading; he knows that just a fraction of the GNU packages' code is copyright FSF. What part do GNU packages compose in the whole system? Many are just as essential as Linux is.

In 1995, GNU packages were 28% of the system, while Linux was 3%. 28% is less than half, so that was a minority; but it is a lot more than 3%. Nowadays, after thousands of other groups have added to the system, both the GNU and Linux percentages are smaller than before; but no other project has contributed as much as the GNU Project.

Calling the combined system GNU/Linux is right because it gives the GNU Project credit for its work, but there are things more important than credit -- your freedom, for example. It is no accident that the GNU GPL existed before Linux was begun. We wrote the GPL to protect the freedom of the users of GNU, and we are revising it today so that it will protect against newer technical methods of denying that freedom. When you think about GPL issues, this is the background for them.

If the developers of Linux disagree with that goal, they are entitled to their views. They are entitled to cite their important work--Linux, the kernel--to be listened to more, but they should respect our right to cite the GNU system in the same way.

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html for more explanation.

GPLv3: What Linus, Alan, Greg, Andrew and Dave Said

Few subjects in the world of free software have provoked as much discussion as the new GNU GPLv3 licence. Mostly it's outsiders (like me) sounding off about this, but what do the people involved really think?

I decided to ask them, and write up the result for the Guardian. I was expecting a couple of lines back to my emailed questions if I was lucky, but badly underestimated hacker generosity. Linus and his mates sent me back long and typically thoughtful replies, while RMS wanted to talk about it at length.

Since I was only able to use a tiny fraction of this material in the Guardian article that resulted, I thought it might be a useful contribution to the GPLv3 debate to post it here (with the permission of those concerned).

For length reasons, I've split it up into two postings. Below are the replies of the kernel coders, which I received on 3 October, 2006 (placed in the order in which their authors appear in the recent GPLv3 poll). The interview with RMS can be found above.

Linus Torvalds

I don't think there will necessarily be a lot of _practical_ fallout from it, so in that sense it probably doesn't matter all that much. It's not like we haven't had license "discussions" before (the whole BSD vs GPL flame-war seemed to go on for years back in the early nineties). And in many ways, it's not like the actual split between the "Open Source" and the "Free Software" mentality is in any way new, or even brought about by the GPLv3 license.

So while I think there is still a (admittedly pretty remote) chance of some kind of agreement, I don't think that it's a disaster if we end up with a GPLv2 and a new and incompatible GPLv3. It's not like we haven't had licenses before either, and most of them haven't been compatible.

In some ways, I can even hope that it clears the air for all the stupid tensions to just admit that there are differences of opinion, and that the FSF might even just stop using the name "GNU/Linux", finally admitting that Linux never was a GNU project in the first place.

The real downside, I suspect, is just the confusion by yet another incompatible license - and one that shares the same name (licenses such as OSL and GPL were both open source licenses and they were incompatible with each other, but at least they had clear differentiation in their names).

And there's bound to be some productivity loss from all the inevitable arguments, although in all honesty, it's not like open source developers don't spend a lot of time arguing _anyway_, so maybe that won't be all that big of a factor - just a shift of area rather than any actual new lost time ;)

One of the reasons the thing gets so heated is that people (very much me included) feel very strongly about their licenses. It's more than just a legal paper, it's deeply associated with what people have been working on for in some cases decades. So logically I don't think the disagreement really matters a whole lot, but a lot of it is about being very personally attached to some license choice.

Alan Cox

Ar Maw, 2006-10-03 am 13:57 +0100, ysgrifennodd glyn moody:
> Since it seems likely that the kernel will remain under v2, while the
> rest of GNU goes for v3, I was wondering whether you think this is
> going to cause you and others practical problems in your work on the
> kernel. What about companies and end-users of GNU/Linux: will there

There is no such thing as GNU/Linux. For an article like this it's really important to understand and clarify that (and from the US view also as a trademark matter).

I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called "GNU/Linux". It's a bit of spin-doctoring by the FSF to try and link themselves to Linux. Normally its just one of those things they do and people sigh about, but when you look at the licensing debate the distinction is vital. (its also increasingly true that FSF owned code is a minority part of Linux)

Linux is not and never has been an FSF project. I would say the majority of the kernel developers don't buy the FSF political agenda. Linus likewise chose the license for the pragmatic reason it was a good license for the OS, not because he supported the GNU manifesto.

Thus this isn't about the Linux people splitting from the FSF, its a separate project that happens to have been consulted as to whether it would like to use a new, allegedly better, variant of the license it chose.

Linux does use FSF tools but that doesn't make it a GNU project any more than this article will be an IBM project because it was typed on a PC, or a BT project because it used an ADSL line.

The Linux kernel being GPLv2 isn't a problem we can see for the future. It is a distinct work to the applications that run on it, just as Windows kernel is to Windows applications. The more awkward corner cases will be LGPL and similar licenses where you want the benefits and flexibility. The FSF have indicated they understand that and will ensure it works out. The licenses are about having barriers to abuse, not barriers to use.

> be negative consequences for them, or do you think that life will
> just go on as before?

I'm not sure what will happen with the rest of the GPL licensed software world. It really is too early to say because the license is a draft at this point and various areas around patents and optional clauses remain open to correction and improvement.

Most GPL licensed code is not controlled by the FSF and probably has too many contributers to relicense. Stuff that is new or has a few owners might change license if the new license is good. However given that most of the work on the FSF owned projects is done by non FSF people then if the license is bad I imagine all the developers will continue the GPLv2 branch and the FSF will be left out in the cold. The FSF know this too and that's why it takes time to build a new license and consensus.

It may well be the new license is mostly used with new code.

> What's the main problem you have with GPLv3?

For the the kernel there are a few, the big one that is hard to fix is the DRM clause. Right now the GPLv2 covers things like DRM keys in generic language and it means the law can interpret that sanely. Its vague but flexible, which lawyers don't like of course. There isn't any caselaw but out of court settlements support the fact this is enforcable.

The GPLv3 variant is much stronger and it appears to cover things like keys to rented devices where the DRM logic is less clear.

The big one though for the kernel is not a legal matter or even a specifically GPLv3 matter. Many people contributed to the kernel under a set of understood terms. Not only would all those people have to agree to a change in those terms but those terms changing would prevent some of the existing users from continuing to use it in the manner they do now.

You can't really make an agreement like that and then change the rules on people who've contributed time, money and code to the Linux p