OneAndOneIs2

Since the latest round of "2 vs. 3" hit Slashdot, Groklaw, and most other sites with an interest in Linux, GNU, OS, and FS, many people have left comments with their views.

And there are a lot of strange ideas about what the GPL 3 will do floating about out there.

I'm pro-3 because I don't like TIVOization

Tivo, of course, famously took Linux and installed it in a machine that would only run Tivo's own binaries: You can't buy a Tivo and install generic Linux on it.

Firstly, do bear in mind that Linux running on machines you can't install your own software on is not new: There are many embedded devices that use Linux installed on a chip that can't be updated. Linux machines that you can't hack have been on sale for years without any complaints.

Tivo made the "FOSS hate list" because it is more of a PC than an embedded device, and its software CAN be updated - but only by Tivo. Not by the end user, because they can't sign the software.

They released the source code. You just can't modify or compile their software and run it on their machine. Not very "open" is it?

No, but ask yourself where the problem is: Software or hardware?

If source code can compile and run perfectly, but it doesn't because the hardware refuses to run it, the problem is clearly with the hardware. Tivoisation is a hardware issue. Attempting to fix a hardware problem with software is an excercise in futility: It is the wrong tool for the job.

Trying to get rid of Tivoization with the GPL is like trying to put in a screw using a hammer instead of a screwdriver: It might be possible to do it, but it'll be hard work and cause a great deal of unnecessary damage.

Banning Tivoization also runs the risk of destroying any value that Trusted Computing might have to the FOSS world.

Yes, TC has value to FOSS: There are already projects taking advantage of it, such as Gentoo. TC is only bad if somebody else has control over yours. If you own it and are in control of it, then it is a good thing. Saying that TC is inherently bad because it will prevent you from installing your own choice of software is like saying firewalls are bad because they'll make it impossible for you to use BitTorrent: It's only true when you aren't in control.

Imagine your favourite distro starts signing the official RPMs, debs, TGZs, or whatever your packages happen to be.

If you don't have or use TC, it makes no difference. But if you have TC and set it so your machine will only run binaries signed by your distro maintainer, you can be assured that no malware can be run on your machine: If it isn't an official distro package, it won't work.

For many people, official packages are all they need. If you're not one of them, set your PC to also accept binaries signed with your own personal key. Now you can sign software you want to run, and install anything you like. But still, nobody else can install malware: TC has kept your computer safe.

Sounds nice, doesn't it? You get better security, and with no loss of freedom. TC can give you that. GPL v3 will prevent it ever happening:

The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use

If a distro recommends that you enable TC and use it to prevent non-distro packages to run, then the distro's keys are, by definition, necessary for you to run software in the recommended way. Ergo, your distro maintainer has to give you its keys. Thus the keys are worthless, and TC gives you nothing.

You can't outlaw the good without outlawing the bad. GPL 3 aims to make it impossible for people to misuse DRM and TC to take away your freedom. But it also takes away your ability to use such measures for your benefit. This is on a par with outlawing encryption to make it harder for people to trade illegal files (piracy and kiddy-porn) - it will make it a bit harder on the bad guys, but it will also completely screw over the good guys who suddenly can't securely enter passwords or credit card details without somebody being able to snoop the unencrypted connection.

When I buy a Tivo, it's my property and I should be able to install what I like on it

Sure, when you buy a piece of hardware, it's *your* hardware. You can clout it with a hammer or use it as a doorstop, or take it apart to see what makes it tick.

But that doesn't mean that the manufacturer is under any obligation to make it easy for you to install your own software on it. The average DVD player can't have Linux installed on it, nor can the average digital watch. And neither v2 or v3 of the GPL gaurantees your right or ability to easily install software on hardware.

So if you think that, had Linux and GNU and all other FOSS been under GPL v3 the whole time, you would be able to install a new distro on a Tivo just by putting the install CD into the DVD drive, you're fooling yourself.

If Dell sold a Linux PC that was welded closed and had no optical drives or support for booting off USB drives, most people would seriously struggle to remove the existing OS and replace it with their own preferred flavour of Linux - netinstalls aren't common knowledge these days. But Dell would be perfectly within the rights of GPL v2 and v3 - they've sold you a PC, and if you can get your own OS onto it, you're welcome to run it. They've just made it quite hard for you to get that OS installed.

No software license will make it easy, or even possible, for you to install any software you like onto every piece of hardware. Even if that hardware already runs your target OS - When my Linux handheld, the GP2X, suffered a bad firmware upgrade, I had to buy a JTAG cable to get Linux back onto it. All the rescue CDs in the world were of no use to me.

I'm pro-3 because I'm anti-DRM

This one baffles me, I admit. GPL v3 won't even help with DVD's CSS protection, let alone any of the more modern DRM schemes on the way. "No DRM on Linux" sounds good, if you don't realize that it means "No DRM can run on Linux" rather than "DRM is ignored by Linux"

We need to switch to GPL v3 now because DRM and patents are already a problem

Are they?

Really?

How many FOSS projects have been shut down by patents? Exactly?

Patent trolls aren't out there to destroy anything - they're there to make money. They target megacorporations for that, not homebrew hackers. They're no threat to FOSS.

I daresay MS would love to litigate Linux out of existence, but they'd be out of their minds to try: Corporations like IBM and governemnts worldwide have made huge investments in Linux, they won't stand idly by. Whether by using their own enormous portfolios of patents (IBM) or by simply throwing out patent law (govenrments), any kind of assault on Linux via patents would be suicide. To say nothing of the monopoly-abuse cases that would be hurled instantly back at Microsoft the second it made any kind of overt anti-Linux move.

Patents have done no damage to Linux, and are not likely to. Patents are, more and more, becoming an irrelevance rather than a threat: Corporations are patenting so that others can't use patents against them, "patent commons" initiatives are widespread. It's all very entertaining for doom-lovers, but realistically patents are no threat to FOSS.

DRM is a PITA, no argument, but no software license will make it go away: While DRM-happy corporations own works they want to DRM, and people buy DRM, there will be DRM. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Contribute to Creative Commons. Applaud Warner for putting their video catalogue on YouTube. Don't expect the GPL to save you: Wrong tool for the job.

GPL v3 will make more manufacturers avoid proprietary software, DRM, and all those nasty things.

No it won't.

Firstly, everything that's currently GPL v2 will stay GPL v2 - it can be forked and kept under the GPL v2 forever. All the GNU tools, everything. You can't revoke a GPL license.

Secondly, if Linux rules itself out as a platform for manufacturers like Tivo, do you really think they'll just roll over and open everything up? Have you never heard of OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD. . .

You don't even have to release source code with the BSDs, let alone keep your hardware open enough to run other people's software. If Linux becomes less attractive, BSD will become more so. The only looser there is Linux itself: If it runs on less hardware, it only reduces its chances of getting hardware support.

Tivo has a competitor, you know: Digeo's Moxi. Because they used Linux, Digeo supplied device and filesystem driver improvements that the Linux kernel is better for. If Linux had been no good to them, they never would have supplied those useful things.

Want to get rid of those annoying binary blobs for your graphics & WiFi cards? Give hardware makers a reason to use & support Linux.

In summary: The GPL v3 aims to make it impossible for people to install open-source software on hardware that won't run user-modified binaries. If that's what you want, support and use the GPL v3.

The GPL v3 is not an antidote to DRM or the DMCA; it will not stop abuses of TC; it is not a weapon to force hardware suppliers to supply open-source drivers and/or hackable hardware. It will not stop corporations or people from doing things with hardware or software that you would rather they didn't do.

It's not a panacea that will cure all technical woes. DRM will not be killed by the GPL, software patents will not be ruled illegal because of a software license.

Being anti-patent, anti-DRM, anti-Tivo or anti-TC does not mean being pro-GPL3, or vice-versa.