Do you have questions about the site? Write to bruce at perens.com .
List of all articles we've ever published.
Source Code
Developer's Documentation
RSS
XML Sitemap
XML News Sitemap
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Clearing up anti-GPL3 FUD
There's been a lot of talk about GPL version 3: whether it goes too far to be acceptable to business, whether the Linux kernel developers will ever switch to it, whether our community will fork or undergo unrest over it. Much of that talk is based on a poor understanding of the GPL3 terms, and with release of the new license imminent, it's time to clear that up.
Some of the bad publicity about GPL3 is deliberate. A particularly bad article by Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine painted an offensive picture of GPL3 and Richard Stallman, even accusing Stallman of having sex with flowers (!!!) after Lyons failed to comprehend a scientific joke [1]. The article was "pitched" to Lyons and Forbes [2] by then OSDL director Stuart Cohen. ODSL was abruptly shut down by its own members, eliminating Cohen's job, after Lyons' article and another odious incident [3]. To save face, it was announced that OSDL would be "merged" with Free Standards Group.
Confused objectors to GPL3 state that it won't allow the Linux kernel to be used on a system that implements DRM, and that GPL3 will compel manufacturers to "give away their keys". If Linus Torvalds and the kernel developers still believe this, they're wrong.
The intent of GPL3 (and most other Free Software licenses) is to give you the right to modify the covered software. GPL version 3 takes more trouble than other licenses to make sure that this right actually works with embedded systems. It essentially trades the makers of those systems the right to base their devices on our great GPL software, in exchange for the consumer's right to make that hardware run new and innovative programs that weren't envisioned by its manufacturer.
GPL3 does not prohibit DRM, and does not require that the DRM be insecure or unreliable. What it requires is that the DRM must not break the GPL software or lock it down, and must continue to work to play media if the GPL software is modified.
A system with GPL3 software and DRM would have to allow the GPL software, for example the operating system kernel, to be replaced. It would have to allow the system to boot after such a change, and it would have to continue to allow the system to play media or do whatever the DRM would otherwise do before the change. It would not have to provide access to the unencrypted media stream, and there would be no requirement to release cryptographic keys as long as the DRM was implemented to comply with GPL3's requirements.
If the Linux kernel was under GPL3, a manufacturer would be prohibited from using DRM to lock down that kernel so severely that we'd be unable to change it, as the Tivo locks it down today. But that doesn't mean that you can't have bullet-proof DRM to restrict media using Linux and GPL3, and it wouldn't prevent Tivo from using new kernels. It just says where that DRM must be located: anywhere that it can live without removing the user's right to change the GPL software.
If GPL3 is applied to the operating system kernel of a system, there are four places where you can put DRM in that system and remain within compliance with GPL3. Those places also happen to be the best, most secure and reliable places to put the DRM from a technical standpoint, regardless of the license:
You can put the DRM in the processor that isn't running the kernel, and then the GPL component just talks to a well-defined interprocessor link to the external CPU that runs the DRM. The GPL obligations don't cross that link.
Many have interpreted that the GPL 2 has always made the same restriction on DRM that is stated more explicitly in GPL 3. I've always advised my strategic consulting customers to make their technical plans assuming this is so, rather than have it decided in an expensive lawsuit. The four places for DRM that I state above apply equally to GPL 2.
Another oft-heard objection to GPL3 is "GPL 2 is good enough!". But GPL has never stood alone, it has always depended on the local interpretation of copyright and other law to give it force, and those things change over time.
When the GPL was written, there was no web, music came from phonograph records, video from tape, and rather than DRM there was rudimentary software "copy protection". The renaissance of microprocessors, software, the web and digital media worked a tremendous change in the law with many changes to copyright, patents, the nature of consent, contracts, tear-open licenses, and copyright permissions. And there have been many trials over those years that added interpretation to laws that GPL 2 depends upon. As the law changes, GPL must change to keep up with it, or it will become increasingly un-enforcible.
In the Novell-Microsoft agreement, a loophole was constructed by Microsoft and Novell's attorneys, one so new to us that the first two public drafts of GPL3 contained no provision to repair it. This experience shows that GPL must continue to grow just to stand still. To freeze on one version would act to erode its protections over time.
And what about Novell-Microsoft? Will there be a provision to block that deal in GPL3? How will it work? Richard Stallman announced on Monday March 19 that GPL3 will contain a provision that blocks the Novell-Microsoft deal. It works this way: if any entity that distributes the software arranges to protect a particular group from patents regarding that software, it must protect everyone. This mends the loophole exploited in the Novell-Microsoft agreement without being discriminatory or unfair.
What does this mean to Novell? It won't keep them from using existing GPL 2 software in its present versions. But it may freeze them in amber as an example of the state of software in early 2007, as the rest of the Free Software community and Linux distributions move into the future. Torvalds is loath to change the license on Linux right away, but critical programs in the Novell system are directly owned by FSF: GLibC, the fundamental library that every program depends upon, the C compiler and other key components.
Projects not owned by FSF will also make the switch: the motivation of Open Source programmers to release new code to the public is in part dependent on the enforceability of the GPL's share-and-share-alike terms, and GPL3 will offer the best continued enforceability.
A majority of Open Source projects choose the GPL, and a share-and-share-alike paradigm, rather than the BSD/Apache flavor of license which is an unconditional gift. Many developers would just stop writing if they couldn't enforce the sharing part of the equation, they'd feel as if they were being taken advantage of by corporations and Linux distributions, like some sort of unpaid employee. The majority that feels that way will tend to switch their projects to GPL3.
The GPL is also a very good license for businesses like MySQL, because it facilitates a dual-licensing paradigm in which a customer can pay a software creator rather than share additions that the customer makes to the software. Expect those companies and projects to switch to GPL3, once they study the final version.
But how can the Linux kernel project, with its thousands of developers, change its license? We can't even reach them all, and some of those developers are dead and their estates don't know software licenses from driver's licenses. But changing the license is easier than most people think.
First, it's not a fundamental change: the intent of GPL 3 is that of GPL 2, the change is in the implementation. Given that, what would be required for such a change would be for Torvalds (or someone else) to publish his intent to start making releases with the new license, as a legal notice. A certain number of people would object, and they would have the right to require that their contributions be removed from the new release.
The kernel team has never been loath to replace code when necessary, and never slow to handle the job, no matter how large the item to be replaced. Just look at the replacement of Bitkeeper with "git", a big job that took a ground-up rewrite and yet was working in five weeks. So, code belonging to GPL3-objectors would be swiftly dealt with.
After some time passed, the release would happen under the new license, and life would go on. There is precedent for this, as Torvalds has already made two significant changes to the prelude to GPL2 on the kernel, publishing his intent and then making a release.
But will the kernel team ever switch to GPL3? Linus Torvalds and some other kernel team members don't like it today. But as I've presented above, their reasons to dislike might not really be valid. One thing to Torvalds' credit: when he's wrong, he can be convinced of that eventually. But sometimes it takes years. Going by history, I think that we could wait one or two years to see the kernel team see fit to switch to GPL3. Even if they don't, so many other important projects will switch to GPL3 that it is sure to be an important factor in our future lives.
Footnotes
Stallman had been noted, upon sniffing a flower or observing someone else to do so, to utter "Aah, rhinophytophilia", and wrote about it on his web site. This is a scientific joke. A flower is a plant's sexual organ, and pollen is its sperm. When you sniff a "male" flower (one that emits pollen), you invariably take thousands or millions of pollen granules, little packages of plant DNA, into your body. And thus "rhino": nose, "phyto": flower, "philia": love :-) . It gives some people allergies, but it gave Lyons the creeps when, somehow lacking a 5th-grade knowledge of biology once he'd looked up the Greek, the confused reporter thought that Stallman had been getting hot with flowers!
FYI: Stallman's many girlfriends have been attractive, he does suprisingly well in that regard. Lyons and his ilk should take note: from a scientific perspective, most of the food that everybody eats are the sexual organs of plants. Grain, fruit, and nuts are the wombs and embryos of the plant world, flowers are genitalia.
Many, perhaps most stories in the news are not the result of reporters and editors thinking them up by themselves. Instead, parties that have a reason to want a particular story covered try to entice the press to cover them. The "pitch" is the story that public relations people tell the press to get them to write a story.
There are many people who make their living doing this, providing public relations and publicity services that include acting as intermediaries between organizations and the press, and constructing messages and campaigns. Although Open Source has had excellent luck placing stories without professional assistance, our community has also had much benefit from the work of the inimitable Open Source enthusiast and tech public relations executive Jill Ratkevic. Jill has helped me to promote the interests of our community for years, usually asking for nothing in return. When I finally got in a position where I could pay her, I had to work hard to get her to take the money!
Cohen, speaking as OSDL's director, made a public statement endorsing the Novell-Microsoft agreement, and his statement was used in Novell's press release. Microsoft has used the agreement as a new license to spread lawsuit FUD about Linux and Open Source. Imagine how that made OSDL member and FUD victim Red Hat feel, but they were hardly the only OSDL member to be offended, or the only one damaged by FUD from that agreement.
The Novell-Microsoft agreement also expresses very bad faith toward Novell's own developers, because Novell and Microsoft engineered a legal circumvention of the GPL's patent terms. And that's hardly what OSDL should have stood behind. Of course the deal, with its implied lawsuit threat toward anyone who isn't a Novell customer, is very much against the interest of almost everyone involved in Open Source, especially OSDL's former members.