The Maintainers of the Linux Kernel speak purely in their role as kernel maintainers about the General Public License version 3 (GNU) (in its current Draft 2 form) and its surrounding process.
1 Linux and GPLv2
Over the past decade, the Linux Operating System has shown itself to be 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
GPLv3 and the Process to Date
The current version 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:
- DRM Clauses
- Additional Restrictions Clause
- Patents Provisions
The three key objections noted in 'GPLv3 and the Process to Date' are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence proposal. However, 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.
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, foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe. 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 the entire ecosystem and jeopardise the very utility and survival of Open Source.
Source
|
