Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Bjoern Schiessle schiessle at fsfe.org
Tue Sep 26 20:54:12 UTC 2006


Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge at nedprod.com> wrote:
> They then go on to say that in their opinion, you can't write any wording 
> which wouldn't have unintended consequences and therefore you should drop 
> the attempt. That's going too far IMHO, but I do WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that 
> the wording is FAR, FAR too vague. 

> For example, as far as I understood  revision 2, it COULD be
> incompatible with BSD licensing,

The BSD Licence allows you to do everything you want with the software
even to use it with a licence which allows you nothing, so how could it be
incompatible with the GPLv3?

> COULD be incompatible with authentication signing keys (ie; this
> binary was made by me),

I can't see how you can read this assumption out of draft 2 of GPLv3?

Draf2 of GPLv3 says:
"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, such that they can
implement all the same functionality in the same range of
circumstances."

If you sign a program so that i know that the program comes from you i
can "install and/or execute modified versions from source
code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can
implement all the same functionality in the same range of
circumstances." So you don't have to give me your signing key.

> COULD be incompatible with permitting GPL v3 binaries to be
> transferred over a SSL connection etc.

If you transfer something over SSL from person A to person B than person
B will be able to execute and/or modify the code as permitted by the
GPL. So i don't see how it could be prohibited by GPLv3.

I would be interested to know how you came to such conclusions. Maybe
you can quote some sections from draft2 of GPLv3 to back up your
opinion?
 
> And you know what happens next if the FSF doesn't stop? Yep, the kernel 
> developer's own 'enhancement' of GPL v2.

I don't think so. I seems like the kernel hackers are quite happy with
their licence (GPLv2) and remember, they would need the approval from all
contributors to change the licence.

Cheers,
Bjoern

-- 
Bjoern Schiessle                                http://www.schiessle.org

Nobody can save your freedom but YOU -
become a fellow of the FSF Europe!                (https://www.fsfe.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 309 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20060926/e647a903/attachment.sig>


More information about the Discussion mailing list