Kernel and GPLv3 issues
I’ve been following the GPLv3 debate as an interested bystander, have formed an opinion on the matter, which I’ve kept to myself, though, not being an active contributor to any GPL projects. I just read this post by Glyn Moody to linuxjournal.com (”GPLv3: What the Hackers Said“). While it contains some of the same familiar argments from both sides, it’s still a good and informative read, as it contains a few issues which I had not previously seen expressed this clearly. What I found most interesting is the following quote from Greg Kroah-Hartman about the Kernel developers’ position, which I had not previously seen voiced:
Also, please note that the DRM issues have changed over time from being very broad (which was at least admirable), to being explicitly targeted at only the Linux kernel. Now the license is worded to try to stop the “tivoization” issue.
This is the where a bootloader or bios determines if the crypto signature of the kernel is acceptable or not before it decides to run it or not. This means that only “approved” kernels that come from the company will run properly on the hardware.
Now this kind of restriction pretty much _only_ affects the kernel, not any other type of program. This is because only if you can control the kernel can you ensure that the system is “secure”.
So it seems that the FSF is only targeting the Tivo issue, which us kernel developers have explicitly stated in public that it is acceptable to use _our_ code in this manner. So they are now trying to tell another group (us) what we should do to our code.
Coming after Richard Stallman’s statement about freedom and about the FSF giving “freedom to the user” makes it sound like in order to give something to someone, you need to take it away from someone else first. Unless you’re creating it yourself. About which Alan Cox has to say (in the same article):
“There is no such thing as GNU/Linux. […] I mean there is no abstract entity even that is properly called “GNU/Linux”. It’s a bit of spin-doctoring by the FSF to try and link themselves to Linux. […] (its also increasingly true that FSF owned code is a minority part of Linux).”
And now some commenters are — quite predictably, actually — saying that since the kernel could not be relicensed under GPLv3, the issue was a moot point anyway. Somehow it just keeps going around and around in circles.
Go and read the article and make up your own mind.
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add this post to digg.com
Bookmark on reddit.com