[Outofthebox] GPL 3

[Alessio 'isazi' Sclocco]

Lo so' lo so' questa non e' proprio una discussione "tecnica" in senso 
stretto, ma passatemi comunque questa analisi della GPL3 fatta da 
alcuni noti linux developer perche' mi sembra comunque interessante.


The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3


James E.J. Bottomley             Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Thomas Gleixner            Christoph Hellwig           Dave Jones

Greg Kroah-Hartman              Tony Luck           Andrew Morton

Trond Myklebust             David Woodhouse


                               15 September 2006

Abstract


This document is a position statement on the GNU General Public
License version 3 (in its current Draft 2 form) and its surrounding
process issued by some of the Maintainers of the Linux Kernel
speaking purely in their role as kernel maintainers. In no regard
should any opinion expressed herein be construed to represent the
views of any entities employing or being associated with any of the
authors.


1 Linux and GPLv2

Over the past decade, the Linux Operating System has shown itself to be 
far and away the most successful Open Source operating system in 
history.
However, it certainly wasn't the first such open source operating system
and neither is it currently the only such operating system. We believe 
that the pre-eminent success of Linux owes a great part to the dynamism 
and diversity of its community of contributors, and that one of the 
catalysts for creating and maintaining this community is the 
development contract as expressed by GPLv2.
Since GPLv2 has served us so well for so long, and since it is the
foundation of our developer contract which has helped propel Linux to 
the successes it enjoys today, we are extremely reluctant to 
contemplate tampering with that licence except as bug fixes to correct 
exposed problems or updates counter imminent dangers. So far, in the 
whole history of GPLv2, including notable successes both injunctively 
and at trial, we have not found any bugs significant enough to warrant 
such corrections.


2 Linux, the Kernel and the Open Source Universe

Linux Distributions, as the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has often
observed, don't only contain the kernel; they are composed of a
distribution of disparate open source components of which the kernel is
only a part (albeit a significant and indispensable part) which
collectively make up a useful and usable system. Thus, Linux as 
installed by the end user, is critically dependent on entities, known 
as distributions, who collect all of the necessary components together 
and deliver them in a tested, stable form. The vast proliferation of 
Open Source Licences complicates the job of these distributions and 
forces them to spend time checking and assessing the ramifications of 
combining software packages distributed under different (and often 
mutually incompatible) licences--indeed, sometimes licensing 
consideration will be sufficient to exclude a potential package from a 
distribution altogether.
In deference to the critical role of distributions, we regard reducing
the Open Source licensing profusion as a primary objective. GPLv2 has
played an important role in moving towards this objective by becoming 
the dominant Licence in the space today, making it possible to put 
together a Linux Distribution from entirely GPLv2 components and thus 
simplify the life of a distributor. Therefore, we believe that any 
update to GPLv2 must be so compelling as to cause all projects 
currently licensed under it to switch as expediently as possible and 
thus not fragment the currently unified GPLv2 licensed ecosystem.


3 Linux and Freedom

Another of the planks of Linux's success rests squarely on the breadth 
and diversity of its community of contributors and users, without whom 
we wouldn't have the steady stream of innovation which drives our 
movement forward. However, an essential element of this is the fact 
that individuals with disparate (and sometimes even competing) 
objectives can still march together a considerable distance to their 
mutual benefit. This synergy of effort, while not compromising 
dissimilar aims, is one of the reasons Linux manages to harness the 
efforts of not only motivated developers but also corporate and 
commercial interests. This in turn is brought about by a peculiar 
freedom enshrined in the developer contract as represented by GPLv2, 
namely the freedom from binding the end use of the project. Without
this freedom, it would be much more difficult to satisfy the objectives 
of the contributors, since those objectives often have expression in 
terms of the end use to which they wish to put the particular project. 
Therefore, in order to maintain the essential development synergy and 
consequent innovation stream it provides to Linux, we could not 
countenance any change to the GPL which would jeopardise this 
fundamental freedom.


4 Pivotal Role of the Free Software Foundation

We have acknowledged before, projects controlled by the FSF (especially
gcc, binutils and glibc) are essential components of every shipping 
Linux distribution. However, we also take note of the fact that the FSF 
operates very differently from Linux in that it requires assignment of 
copyright from each and every one of the thousands of contributors to 
its code base. These contributions have been given to the FSF not as a 
tribute to do with as it will but under a solemn trust, as stated in 
article 9 of GPLv2, only to licence the code under versions of the GPL 
that "... will be similar in spirit to the present version". We, like 
all the individual contributors to GNU projects, have taken that trust 
at face value and accorded the FSF a special role in the Open Source 
Universe because of it. It goes without saying that any updates to 
GPLv2 must be completely in accord with the execution of that trust.


5 GPLv3 and the Process to Date

The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails
the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no 
substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to 
solve.
However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the
current FSF draft:

5.1     DRM Clauses

Also referred to as the "Tivoisation" clauses.
While we find the use of DRM by media companies in their attempts to
reach into user owned devices to control content deeply disturbing, our
belief in the essential freedoms of section 3 forbids us from ever
accepting any licence which contains end use restrictions. The existence 
of DRM abuse is no excuse for curtailing freedoms.
Further, the FSF's attempts at drafting and re-drafting these
provisions have shown them to be a nasty minefield which keeps ensnaring
innocent and beneficial uses of encryption and DRM technologies so, on 
such demonstrated pragmatic ground, these clauses are likewise 
dangerous and difficult to get right and should have no place in a well 
drafted update to GPLv2.
Finally, we recognise that defining what constitutes DRM abuse is
essentially political in nature and as such, while we may argue 
forcefully for our political opinions, we may not suborn or coerce 
others to go along with them. Therefore, attempting to write these type 
of restrictions into GPLv3 and then relicense all FSF code under it is 
tantamount to co-opting the work of all prior contributions into the 
service of the FSF's political ends, and thus represents a fundamental 
violation of the trust outlined in section 4.

5.2     Additional Restrictions Clause

As we stated in section 2 one of the serious issues in Open Source is 
too many licences. The additional restrictions section in the current 
draft makes GPLv3 a pick and choose soup of possible restrictions which 
is going to be a nightmare for our distributions to sort out legally 
and get right. Thus, it represents a significant and unacceptable 
retrograde step over GPLv2 and its no additional restrictions clause.
Further, the additional restrictions create the possibility of
fragmentation of the licensing universes among particular chosen
restrictions, which then become difficult to combine and distribute
(because of the need for keeping track of the separate restrictions). 
Thus, we think this potential for fragmentation will completely 
eliminate the needed compulsion to move quickly to a new licence as 
outlined in section 2.

5.3     Patents Provisions

As drafted, this currently looks like it would potentially jeopardise 
the entire patent portfolio of a company simply by the act of placing a 
GPLv3 licensed programme on their website. Since the Linux software 
ecosystem relies on these type of contributions from companies who have 
lawyers who will take the broadest possible interpretation when 
assessing liability, we find this clause unacceptable because of the 
chilling effect it will have on the necessary corporate input to our 
innovation stream.
Further, some companies who also act as current distributors of Linux
have significant patent portfolios; thus this clause represents another
barrier to their distributing Linux and as such is unacceptable under
section 2 because of the critical reliance our ecosystem has on these
distributions.


6 Conclusions

The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and
collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence
proposal. However, we also note that the current draft with each of the
unacceptable provisions stripped out completely represents at best 
marginal value over the tested and proven GPLv2. Therefore, as far as 
we are concerned (and insofar as we control subsystems of the kernel) 
we cannot foresee any drafts of GPLv3 coming out of the current 
drafting process that would prove acceptable to us as a licence to move 
the current Linux Kernel to.
Further, since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to
GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we
foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire 
Open Source Universe upon which we rely. This Balkanisation, which will 
be manifested by distributions being forced to fork various packages in 
order to get consistent licences, has the potential to inflict massive 
collateral damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardise the very 
utility and survival of Open Source. Since we can see nothing of 
sufficient value in the current drafts of the GPLv3 to justify this 
terrible cost, we can only assume the FSF is unaware of the current 
potential for disaster of the course on which is has embarked. 
Therefore, we implore the FSF to re-examine the consequences of its 
actions and to abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too 
late.


-- 

Alessio "isazi" Sclocco - Metro Olografix member

http://www.olografix.org/isazi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.olografix.org/pipermail/outofthebox/attachments/20060925/dd691b97/attachment-0002.bin>