[1+1=2]

OneAndOneIs2

« My. . . brain. . . Ouch! »

Sat, Sep 23, 2006

[Icon][Icon]Forking GNU/Linux

• Post categories: Omni, FOSS, In The News, Technology

This is thinking out loud more than a coherent article, so don't expect much in the way of structure. . .

The anti-GPL3 stance of the kernel devs has lead to the expected river of drivel on Slashdot, who are mostly anti-DRM and therefore pro-GPL3. Most comments are notably by non-developers who clearly have no idea what the situation is. There are even halfwits on there saying that "If Linus et al won't GPL3 the kernel, we'll just fork Linux!"

Duhhhhh. . . Linux is GPL2 only. You can fork it as many times as you like, only by completely re-writing it will you be able to GPL3 it. If you want a GPL3 kernel, you would do better to look elsewhere or start from scratch.

On the other hand. . . If GPL3 comes out in its current form, forking WILL occur, because the FSF owns most of the GNU tools, and will move them all to GPL3. Which many developers apparently won't accept.

Result? Well, all the GNU tools can be distributed as GPL2 or GPL3. So the pro-GPL2 devs can fork the GNU tools and continue to use them under GPL2. But the GPL3 devs will be right back into the situation they were in 15 years ago: Lots of GNU tools, and no compatibly-licensed kernel to run them on.

If there really are lots of pro-GPL3 devs out there, this might finally result in Hurd getting the rush of devs it needs to actually get it into mainstream use. It's languished in limbo for over 15 years whilst Linux has stormed from strength to strength, it would be kind of refreshing to see "The GNU operating system" rather than that tiresome hybrid. . .

There's been argument for years about Free vs. Open Source software. GPL3 could be the thing that finally settles it for good: GPL2 can be considered an OS license, where GPL3 is much more FS biased.

If GPL3 is released as-is, the OS devs will fork all current GPL2 code and there will be a complete GPL2 operating system, with all the current tools of a Linux distro.

The FS devs will have to do a lot of work replacing all the GPL2 software that doesn't get moved up to the GPL3, but (particularly if they make us of BSD code) they may be able to do that without much trouble.

So then you'll have two complete operating systems. One will be GPL2, one will be GPL3. That means the Linux OS will be Open but not Free, and the GNU OS will be Free rather than Open.

And then we'll find out if most devs really want Free or Open software, and the tired old argument will be laid to rest forever.

Incidentally, I can't seem to work out if Qt is released under GPL 2 only, or "GPL 2 or above" - if we do get a forking, will the GPL 3 guys be bereft of KDE?

5 comments

hari
Comment from: hari [Visitor] · http://hari.literaryforums.org
Oh my head is spinning. What's the big deal. Both GPL v2 and v3 are GPL and I bet they'll be compatible with each other. Everybody chooses what they want and we all live happily ever after :-p
23/09/06 @ 13:45
Erez
Comment from: Erez [Visitor] · http://erez.wordpress.com
There never were any restriction in either GPL v2 or GPL v3 regarding which license the software you create has to run on. You can, and will be able to use GNU tools on GPL v3 or v2 platform (i.e. Linux), or on proprietary platform (e.g. Windows). The "anti-DRM" clause means you can't USE a GPL v3 software to create, encrypt or run DRM-ed files, not that you can't use GPL v3 tools with GPL v2 kernel.

In case of a GNU tool being switched to GPL v3, and someone wants to use the v2 licensed tool, they can still use the last version that was licensed under v2, or fork using that last version, BUT, there is no real need for that, as the same situation that exist today will exist tomorrow, i.e. that you can use any type of license with any type of license, so you'll be able to use v3 tools on a v2 kernel to run proprietary software, or vice versa. There is no such limitation. You'll be able to compile the kernel using the latest GCC, regardless of whatever license it uses. You can also compile DRM software using GCC, or any free software compiler, for that case.
26/09/06 @ 02:36
ShoeBrush
Comment from: ShoeBrush [Visitor]
I do think the purists are going to want a purely v3 licenced kernel, for political reasons rather than technical ones. Just as people today are reluctant to have their kernels tainted by proprietary drivers etc. I for one would be happy to see something like Hurd spring to life, though I'll continue to use linux for now. At the end of the day, I guess the outcome of all this -- who was right and who was being paranoid -- depends on what v3 turns out to be, and in what ways (if at all) v2 is going to be abused by Evil Capitalists (tm).
26/09/06 @ 12:23
Michael Howard
Comment from: Michael Howard [Visitor]
Couldnt it be solved by just licensing the kernel as GPL v2 or v3, just as the GNU tools are?

Each developer could then adopt whatever licence they want for their own programs, the end.

To me, this seems more of a case that Linus and Richard just won't talk to each other, which is stirring up silly problems, nothing more.

If I'm not mistaken, I think there are several products that violate the GPL, and few have even bothered to go after them, adopting an attitude of "I could if I wanted to, but I'm a programmer - not a lawyer. Code more, make trouble less."
27/09/06 @ 15:02
oneandoneis2
Comment from: oneandoneis2 [Member] · http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/
> Couldnt it be solved by just licensing the kernel as GPL v2 or v3, just as the GNU tools are?

No, because the kernel is GPL 2 only - to change the license would require getting every contributor to re-assign their work.

And while the kernel devs are anti-GPL 3, that's hardly going to happen.
27/09/06 @ 15:49

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)
 

[Links][icon] My links

[Icon][Icon] http://t.co/9VG31Knw
01/02/12

[Icon][Icon] Facebook Syndication Error
03/02/12

[Icon][Icon] I last listened to:
Johann Pachelbel - Canon in D major

[Icon][Icon] Most recent photo:
Submersible houseboat

[Icon][Icon]About Me

[Icon][Icon]About this blog

[Icon][Icon]My LQ profile

[Icon][Icon]My /. profile

[Icon][Icon]My Wishlist

[Icon]MyCommerce

[FSF Associate Member]


February 2012
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29        

Search

User tools

XML Feeds

eXTReMe Tracker

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Valid CSS!

[Valid RSS feed]

powered by free blog software