Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, has rejected the latest draft version of the General Public License (GPL), which governs the Linux kernel, because of restrictions on the use of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in systems.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) issued the second draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) last week. After a period of public debate and feedback on the initial draft, released in January 2006, it was substantially rewritten to tone down and clarify the relationship between free software and DRM technology, but Torvalds has reiterated his opposition to the new version.
"We have redrafted to focus as closely as possible on the only occasion which requires the disclosure of keys, that is when the user's freedom to modify a GPL program depends on a key," said Eben Moglen, FSF general counsel and SFLC chairman.
Following the January release of GPLv3 Draft 1, Torvalds stated publicly that he didn't expect the Linux kernel, a key component of the operating system, would move to GPLv3. "I don't actually see any real fundamental changes there, and it all seems to boil down to the same meaning in the end," Torvalds wrote in an e-mail interview. "The FSF is trying to make some things no longer permissible under the GPLv3 that the GPLv2 left open, and I just happen to think that those things were better off being left open."
According to Torvalds, GPLv3 reaches into places where it should not go. He believes GPLv3 wrongly interferes with the right of hardware manufacturers to design their hardware to work only with specific versions of an open source application, which is a key criterion of DRM systems.
There had been some confusion related to the GPL v3's position on encryption keys, with Torvalds stating in January that he would not be using GPL v3 for Linux as he did not want to hand over his private signing key.
According to Moglen, the requirement is only aimed at the encrypted use of free software within DRM systems, for example, that prevents it being modified "because modified versions won't run at all or cannot do the same job as the original program unless a key is used to sign or install them."
The second draft of GPLv3 doesn't forbid the implementation of digital rights management features outright. Instead, it prohibits third parties from employing technical means to limit users' abilities to use or modify software covered by the GPL. Torvalds continues to question the need for GPLv3, which will be the first major revision to the license in 15 years.
"The new version... reaffirms that distributing GPLed code in a technical context that prevents the user from reinstalling and using a modified version without additional permission, is just as much a violation of the license as adding a legal term with the same effect," said Moglen.
Torvalds had also rejected the anti-DRM stance in February, stating: "we do not, as software developers, have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders."
The difference of opinion centers on the use of Linux within embedded devices such as digital video recording systems. In this instance, the Linux software used within the system is published as required by the GPL, and is modifiable by end users. However, the hardware will not run that modified code without an encryption key.
As far as the FSF is concerned, this is a violation of the GPL, whereas Torvalds sees this as a hardware-licensing problem that does not impact the ability of a developer to modify the code and run it elsewhere.
Torvalds reiterated his position and explained why the second draft of the GPL v3 still does not meet his requirements for the Linux operating system.
"It all boils down to this: do you want to use a license that is for something good (GPLv2), or one that is against something bad?" he wrote, maintaining that designing a license to be against something bad is the wrong place to start.
"I think the GPLv2 is a very positive license. It's about the positive belief that together, you can make something better. In contrast, every single big and fundamental addition to the GPLv3 is about hate and fear," he added.
"I realize that a lot of people see this as a fight. But I tell you; those people are missing the point. We're not fighting. At least the useful people aren't fighting," he added. "No good code ever comes out of people who do things because they are afraid, or because they hate. If you make your choices because you fear somebody, you'll make the wrong choices."
He also criticized the process and the FSF, which oversees the GPL, describing FSF policies as extremist. It appears that the advent of DRM is going to be a catalyst for many raging arguments both in the open source and proprietary software spaces in coming years.
"I think the main issue to be resolved is just who wants the GPLv3 in the first place, and I think that will be for each project to decide," he wrote. In its current form, Torvalds sees no incentive to move from GPLv2 and adopt GPLv3. "I just don't see any advantages to the new limitations, and am personally much happier with the older version 2," he wrote. "I'll always leave the door open for future input and improvements, but the way things look right now, the new v3 license will not actually impact the kernel, although it probably will affect a number of other projects."
|
