Linus on GPLv2

[Joseph Sinclair]

Linus issues, from what I read are:
1) The GPL2 is perfect as is stands(although the BSD might be even better in some ways), there's no reason to create a GPL3
2) The keygen clause (also called, incorrectly, a DRM clause, see below) scares him.
3) The updated patent clause does things he doesn't like.

Linus doesn't like the keygen clause because he thinks there's nothing wrong with Tivoisation, and believes that the new clause will be too hard to get right.  He's also bought into the myth that the new clause is about attacking DRM, and Linus doesn't want the GPL to try to do that.
Several people at the FSF, including RMS, have made it very clear that the new clause cannot, and should not, do anything about DRM applied to media, there are other venues to attack that particular evil.  What it does do is ensure that if a device manufacturer wants to be able to update software in a device (i.e. firmware updates, online upgrades, etc...), that they have to extend the same rights to their users.
There's nothing wrong with putting GPL software in ROM, since the manufacturer retains no rights not passed on to the users.  There's also nothing wrong with stating categorically that the machine warranties, etc... are null and void if the user loads non-certified software.  What's wrong is using some sort of technical means (encryption keys, checksums, phone-home checks, etc...) to allow the manufacturer (ala. Tivo) to update the software, while ensuring the device will simply refuse to run if the user installs a modified version.
For example, Tivo doesn't have to provide program updates, service, support, etc... for a Tivo3 running a user-modified kernel, but they shouldn't be able to have the hardware check for a digital signature, and simply not run if the code isn't signed (unless they provide users the ability to sign code themselves to have the machine run it).  It's a complex little issue, and they've had some trouble getting it just right, but it's necessary to protect the freedoms the FSF created the GPL to protect.

Linus also doesn't like the patent clause, although he hasn't said clearly what bothers him in what I've read, I only get vague "it's not needed and corporations won't like it" noises.  Some have even said it threatens a GPL distributors entire patent portfolio (it doesn't).
What it says is what US law already enforces under the "fair-dealing" doctrine.  That is that if you distribute software that requires a license to your patents, then you automatically give the user a license to use your patent *within that product*.  The GPL3 makes this explicit, and requires that the license "pass-through" to subsequent users of that codebase, in order to extend the same protection internationally (most countries don't have the "fair-dealing" doctrine) and ensure that people who rely on the GPL to create derivative works aren't ambushed by a patent held by another distributor of the same product.

Finally, and most significantly IMO, Linus just plain doesn't like the FSF, and in particular doesn't like that they don't do everything via a public email list.  That's a personal gripe about methods, and I think it's more cover for just plain not wanting the FSF to exist.  He's just as passionate, in his way, about the open-source vs. free-software divide as RMS, and since they're on opposite sides of that divide, it's inevitable that they'll engage in conflict wherever their interests overlap, and licensing is one area where they overlap.

Linus (with the kernel maintainers) and RMS (with various FSF spokespersons) have all published quite a bit over the past few months on this issue, and my above summary represents my own understanding, and nothing more.

In the end I think it's a lot of hubbub over pretty much nothing.  The FSF is going to update the GPL to GPL3.  The Linux kernel will stay GPL2 (it's unlikely they could update even if they wanted to).  All FSF software (incl. the GNU tools) will update to GPL3 on it's release (since the FSF requires copyright assignment for all FSF projects).  Other projects and individuals will make their own choices, which is what software freedom is about, letting people make their own choices.

Just my view.

==Joseph++

Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> Joseph,
> 
>  Excellent comments, thanks.
> 
>  Do you know what LT's specific issues are with GPLv3?
> 
> Thanks,
>   jmz
> 
>