Linux creator Linus Torvalds
Torvalds rejects GPL3 for Linux
/v3-uk/news/2004597/torvalds-rejects-gpl3-linux
27 Jan 2006, Tom Sanders in California , V3
Linux creator Linus Torvalds has spoken out against proposed changes to the forthcoming version of the General Public Licence (GPL), stating that he has no intention of adopting the model for Linux.
"The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files can be licensed under version 3, but not the kernel in general. And quite frankly, I don't see that changing," Torvalds wrote in a posting on the Linux kernel mailing list.
The proposed update for the licence addresses digital rights management (DRM) by requiring that software developers refrain from using DRM copyright protection in combination with any GPL3 product.
This would prevent device manufacturers such as TiVo and Linksys from using Linux to power digital video recorders or media adapters.
"I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example," Torvalds explained.
"So I don't think the GPL version 3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code."
The Free Software Foundation published a first draft of the updated GPL earlier this month.
The DRM provision is one of the more controversial changes in the licence, together with a requirement that software distributors shield users from patent infringement claims. The proposed alterations are up for debate, however, and are still subject to change.
A decision by the Linux community to stick to GPL2 instead of adopting GPL3 could be major setback for the Free Software Foundation, as the application is considered the 'poster child' for the open source licence.
The GPL is by far the most common open source licence, governing the rights and requirements for developers and users.
The licence is best known for its requirement to publish the source code of any adjustments that developers make to software licensed under the model.
This effectively means that the software is available free of charge and that sharing and innovation are encouraged.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
Could this mean
that finally Stallmans dream of having a 'free' kernel (the HURD) going to accelerate its development.
Stallman have never considered the 'Linux' kernel as 'free' as he determines 'free'!
Linus is doing a disservice to the 'free' software movement by rejecting the GPLv3 out of hand as he has stated in the LKML.
Not a good augury for the 'free' software movement.
Posted by Khan Md Ashraf, 28 Jan 2006
Clarification
I sure hope that Linus and Stallman don't start fightning on this licensing matter...
However, I want to make one small correction to the statement that Linus does in
the mailing list.
He says:
"The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid."
That's not entirely true.
Linux kernel version 0.97 and earlier were plainly copyrighted to Linus himself alone and there is no mention about GPL anywhere.
Just look at the kernel source sources from this public archive:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/old/linux-0.97.tar.bz2
It was later than Stallman "convinced" Linus to share Linux kernel as under GPL.
SF
Posted by SF, 27 Jan 2006
Re: Clarification
SF writes:
"That's not entirely true.
Linux kernel version 0.97 and earlier were plainly copyrighted to Linus himself alone and there is no mention about GPL anywhere."
The post referred to is in reply to someone posting:
"..when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2.."
It's my reading that Linus' comment refers solely to this, as in 'no other version of GPL (other than v2) has ever been valid', not that 'nothing apart from GPL' has ever been.
Posted by LW, 31 Jan 2006