Torvalds critical of new GPL draft

[megamaced]

The second draft of a revised General Public License has been released, but Linus Torvalds--founder and leader of the best-known software project governed by the GPL--remains unconvinced of its merits.

Torvalds' concern is with the clause in the GPLv3 second draft regarding digital rights management (DRM) technology, which puts controls on how computers can run software or supply content such as movies or music.

More at C|NET

 

[Impotence]

"Say I'm a hardware manufacturer. I decide I love some particular piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure it runs only one particular version of that software, because that's what I've validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the binary before I run it ... The GPLv3 doesn't seem to allow that, and in fact, most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow the above kind of use, which I don't think it has any business doing."

Lets say I'm a end user, i want too add my own features onto something i have bought.

I have the source code, released under the GPL, so i have the right to make my own version... but i might as well write it on paper as i wont be able to run it on the hardware that i PAID for and that i OWN, how is that fair?

If your modifying the source code and re-flashing/re-writing the storage on the device you obviously know enough to know there's a change it wont work! (and not to bother customer support because they will tell you its your fault!)

As great as he is, he can still be wrong

 

[Anti-Trend]

I agree with Impotence. If the code won't run on your hardware if it's modified, what good is the fact that it's open-source?

 

[Big B]

There's some limitations to 'free' software, and while Torvalds can have his opinion, having no standardization will hurt the OS.

 

[Anti-Trend]

There's some limitations to 'free' software, and while Torvalds can have his opinion, having no standardization will hurt the OS.

GPL2 is a great license, which is why Linus agreed to license Linux under its terms. But GPL3 does have some distinct advantages to the effect of keeping the code open in a practical way. Other developers will adopt the GPLv3 if it suits their goals, and some will stick with GPLv2. We'll just have to wait and see how this all pans out, but I don't think it's all doom and gloom just yet. :)