Will GPLv3 Drive Users from Linux to FreeBSD? 374
An anonymous reader writes "Last week ZDNet put up an article asking a simple question: will GPL3 drive Linux users to FreeBSD? It's based on issues raised in the August FreeBSD Foundation Newsletter. That publication features a letter by the vice president of the FreeBSD Foundation, Justin Gibbs, arguing that the GPLv3 restricts the rights of commercial users of open source software, and is just the FSF's first step in changing the GPL in ways that authors of GPL software may not have intended. He suggests that commercial users should seriously consider BSD-licensed software as an alternative if they want to be able to safely ship products in the future. This is especially in light of requirements from the FCC that software running on devices (such as software-defined radios) be end-user replaceable. Gibbs states that the FreeBSD Foundation will provide an alternative to GPLv3'd software, especially in light of Stallman's statement that further GPL revisions are due in the near future. Is this likely to cause discontent among Linux users, or will they mostly ignore it?"
Linux != GPLv3 (Score:2, Insightful)
Smells like FUD. (Score:2, Insightful)
How is GPLv3 suppposed to prevent software from being end-user replaceable? If anything, TiVo showed that GPLv2 didn't even do that, and BSD licenses won't even try to stop TiVo-like antics.
Besides, Linux is staying with GPLv2, so nothing changed anyway. Nothing to see, please move along.
I Doubt It... (Score:4, Insightful)
calling them "users" confuses the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because its the same boat for both... (Score:5, Insightful)
For Linux, the kernel is GPLv2 only but pretty much all the tools are the same mix of BSD and GNU v2 or later (and all from the FSF are GPLv3 soon), which is "hello GPLv3" for a lot of what you care about.
Thus there is no way GPLv3 will drive people from Linux to BSD for business use, as it really is the same impact for both.
will GPL3 drive Linux users to FreeBSD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Short answer: no.
Why? Simple. The users of both GPLv3 and BSD licensed software really do not see a difference at all. They usually load the software in binary form and it does whatever it does in both cases. But the GPL vs. BSD differences affect mostly programmers and distributors, i.e. the provisions of the license control changes to and distribution of the software.
And in the case of programmers, nothing has really changed. Those who believe in the ideology behind GPL (ideology which was never hidden by RMS or FSF) will continue to do so, and are pleased with the direction in which v3 is headed. Those who loathe that idology in favour of another, BSD centered, which is just as ideologically motivated as the GPL, except covertly and implicitly, will continue to use BSD and bemoan the "evil" and "anti-profit" nature of the GPL.
What will change is that various large corporate leechers, who sought to abuse the GPL to their own ends, will see it harder to achieve their aims. They indeed might consider BSD ... or simply return to closed-source proprietary crud whence they came from in the first place.
Re:GPLv3 software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux != GPLv3 (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1977, we (SWTPc) reimplimented libc for exactly that reason: Western Electric licensing provisions were obnoxious and restrictive. This is the very same reason that RMS and others undertook to reimpliment the Unix toolkit. It's not magic; it's just code, and like employees, there is no piece of code that can't be replaced.
Is it okay not to care about the politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Doubt It... (Score:3, Insightful)
Commercial Users (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they stick around and try to fight it instead of just picking an already-existing alternative? At the moment Linux isn't scary (to a business) and it is more popular. But let the boss get wind of imminent problems with it, and he'll ORDER a switch. That switch may even be to Windows Server, as the liabilities and costs are well known.
This is a very very hypothetical situation, since it would be absolutely insane for the GPL to further limit the freedom of users/distributors (beyond the v3 limits)... But it's possible.
GPLv3 Hardware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow! Someone must have forgotten about the Google clause, which was latter taken out when it's downsides were pointed out. Today it's Google and Tivo. Who next, and doesn't your argument just reinforce what the newsletter's saying?
"Some people object to TiVO being able to base a product on Linux but then not let the Linux community pull it apart and play with it."
No, they objected to the fact that they couldn't run their mods on Tivo hardware. The source code has always been available. The GPL moved from being a software license to a hardware license.
No, USABILITY will move people from Linux to BSD (Score:3, Insightful)
In a similar vein, it is frustration with the out-dated UNIX system of spreading bits of applications around inconsistent places in
Re:GPLv3 does hurt, however... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As a Linux user . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer is in some cases yes. I think you will see BSD used in more Embedded systems now. After RMS went after Tivo other manufactures will be less willing to risk the wraith of RMS.
I really hate how GPL forces only some equipment manufactures to allow the end user replacement of software. It should be all or nothing.
Re:Smells like FUD. (Score:4, Insightful)
So they are arguing that it might be impossible to legally make a software radio with GPL V3 software (unless you enforce the mandatory checks at a hardware level so that the modified software is safe from an FCC perspective).
Re:will GPL3 drive Linux users to FreeBSD? (Score:2, Insightful)
I really do not care about BSD one way or another, nor do I care about X11, MIT and a whole bunch of other licenses out there. And I do believe that it is the absolute right of the creator of whatever open software to put whatever licence he/she wants on it (although I do have deep misgivings about the whole notion of "licensing" information in the first place - but that is another discussion).
What I do dislike is the propensity of the BSD crowd to paint themselves as ideology-free, impartial and objective defenders of "individual freedoms" while at the same time excusing outright profiteering by many individuals and corporations by simply close-sourcing other people's work. That sort of thing gets my proverbial goat. Their idea of "freedom" is pretty much defined as "freedom to profit from other people's work" and their main objection to GPL is that "restricts" their "freedom" to simply take GPL code, modify it and distribute it in some commercial venture of theirs without any sort of recompense.
The difference is of course ideological, and it originates with an understanding that "freedoms" can be both positive and negative and that allowing some "indivdual freedoms" is far too disastrous for the society to even contemplate. Such as "freedom to murder whomever you dislike" etc.
But again, that is another, non-software licensing related discussion although it has direct bearing on the topic.
Microsoft screws people and they beg for more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:will GPL3 drive Linux users to FreeBSD? (Score:5, Insightful)
You probably mean the "accidental" GPL users, chief amongst them Linus, who never really bothered to understand the ideology behind the GPL and simply used it out of "convenience". This "whatever works", "convenience-first" crowd is rather amusing since their success is pretty much dependant on a far greater number of contributors to their projects who do subscribe to the GPL ideology. Speaking of Linus, for an example of the consequences of his short-sighted, "technocratic" approach, witness the the Bitkeeper fiasco, amongst many other such examples.
Again, that depends on if you actually subscribe to GPL ideology, or are merely using GPL because it is "convenient" or for some other such mis-guided reason. As to how many people are in this camp, I cannot even try to estimate. I would venture however to say that many of them do instinctively understand that GPL protects their work from being simply appropriated by some business for commercial use and that is what keeps them away from BSD.
Get Real (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess no one if they wanted to could write a Samba-like app for BSD? And please refrain from the juvenile "well if you think it is so easy, you do it" kind of crap. The point is, if someone wants to, they can. Complacency and pride has killed more than one software project/product. Ask Novell and maybe Corel about that.
Really, the only reason Linux/GNU software is where it is at today is because of commercial software and hardware companies. You can wear rose coloured glasses and talk 'lovey-dovey' about the hoards of volunteers, but Linus himself would have to work on predominantly 'commercial' software projects if his employer didn't think it was in their interest to have him work on kernel projects. The much vaunted open source alternative to MS Office is financed mostly by Sun and other companies. Even Ubuntu, everyone's darling of Linux distros right now would be nothing if commercial money weren't behind it to help in its financing. Shuttleworth wouldn't be able to keep the thing financed for a long time if he didn't form a company to provide commercial support options to it. Ubuntu wouldn't have the look and direction without him. And we have all seen how well he fits in with Stallman's thinking vis a vie mp3 support etc. and all the other GPL purists out there.
As much as the idealogues don't want to admit, people need to put food on the table and to pay the rent. Much (not all) of the most useful contributions to Linux/Gnu wouldn't be possible without commercial companies paying people to create the code for it. E.g. Sun, IBM, Redhat, Novell, and scores of others. Look at all the promising software projects that have died out because the original and most inspired stakeholders/developers have eventually realized that they have to spend their time elsewhere to have a family life as well as to make a living. The database tool Tora is a good example (the latest release is a year and a half old). If you can't program for your Linux/Gnu project during working hours you have to do it during 'non-working hours'... and you can't have a life outside that since it is time consuming. Most people want a 'life' and a family. The Linux/Gnu project is then tossed aside (maybe not happily, but it is still tossed)... Except if you are paid to do it during the daytime by the 'evil' commercial companies. Yes, the projects are open source. But the only ones that don't eventually die are the ones that companies help pay people to continue.
Stallman has hinted that there are more changes to GPL coming. Times have changed, and people playing with this license should be careful not to bite the hand that feeds GNU/Linux. Apple has shown that it is very possible to make some very good things from BSD.
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame to see such FUD perpetrated under the BSD banner, when there is actually so much more that the communities of Linux and BSD have in common than that which separates them. The only thing I have as bad is this is that NetBSD spinoff company that promotes their own embedded BSD version (Wasabi).
Re:GPLv3 software? (Score:1, Insightful)
GPL *never* addressed firmware before v3, whether it was in a product that uses an open or proprietary operating system. Tivo's firmware is theirs; they spent their own money developing it, it's in their hardware, and it's not part of the operating system (kernel/utilities) or an application in user space.
It's ironic, therefore, that you bring up the issue of creating software when that's not even the issue. Tivo shouldn't have to open their *firmware* just to satisfy the unrealistic demands of anti-capitalists at FSF and thereby (1) offer it freely to their competitors who didn't invest either time or money into its development, (2) provide criminals an open view of their firmware's digital security processes so they can trick Tivo units into accepting malware, (3) otherwise increase risks to their end users by opening their systems to those who find vulnerabilities in the firmware that bypass other system checks, and (4) devalue the investment people have made in their company. Tivo did precisely what you suggest. You should defend them against FSF loonies.
Re:Moderation (Score:1, Insightful)
For example, I don't see the FreeBSD project writing their own secure remote shell (like everyone else, they use OpenBSD's), window system (x.org and XFree86 before it), desktop environment (I believe Novell-sponsored GNOME is still the default?), or *cough*a decent C compiler*cough*.
Those are just a few examples of software included with the base distribution that aren't written by the FreeBSD project, it's by no means an inclusive list. I'm not going to even start with the Ports tree (hint, it's called "Ports" for a reason).
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Moderation (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:GPLv3 software? (Score:1, Insightful)
Another reason behind the GPL, though, is to allow people who receive code from you (that you based on code received from the community) to *modify* the code. When the GPLv2 was written, the thinking was that requiring you to share the code would automatically allow people to make modifications to it.
You can modify the code.
You just can't execute the modified code on the TiVO.
The "correctness" of that depends on ownership and support. If you own the TiVO box, then they should not be permitted to restrict you in any way, even if it means you can brick the device or break the law.
If you do not own the box, but merely rent (or "license") it, or if you want the vendor/manufacturer to support it, you should not be able to make modifications to the box.
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept.
-M
Re:GPLv3 software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the people who've worked on GPL software in the past and some of the people who continue to donate their time and effort in the hope that
If you are not about
My FOSS longs to be free... (Score:1, Insightful)
Their goal is to become a monopoly in the mold of Apple: whereas Apple has a brutal lock upon all things Apple, FOSSies are seeking to have a brutal monopoly upon all things Lunix, and then to continue expanding (via the GPL), into every other application until nobody will be able to make money from software except for IBM and Sun. And those two will be laughing at the FOSS zealots all the way to the bank, thanking them for being good little sheep (and unpaid sheep at that).
As we see, time and time again, FOSSies proclaim their aims being "all about choice"... but then we see their real aims when people DARE to choose Microsoft. It isn't about choice, it's about dictating what choices you have. Years and years have proven they can't compete in either the marketplace OR the marketplace of ideas, so rather than trying to beat Microsoft via quality software, instead they are attempting to remove competition from Microsoft via litigation. And the GPLv3 is the cornerstone of the FOSSie's coup attempt on the software industry.
Try to imagine a world in which ALL software HAS to be FOSS. It's an Orwellian nightmare: nobody is going to program, since there is no money in it... and those who do are essentially slave labor. Either that... or it's going to force programming into the realm of high-paid consulting services, and the only companies who can afford programmers are the mega-corporations who can afford to hire their own staff of programmers... which will be protected from FOSS "corruption" via a rigorous review process, lest the organization be forced to forfeit all the investments they made into their own, custom and (due to legal and IP requirements) proprietary, software.
And ALL software which does not fit that mold will have to comply to the whims of the FOSSies. It will be like the Republican party took over the software industry: a hell created in the mold of Nazi Germany.
Re:GPLv3 software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look...The source code for TiVo is there. See: http://dynamic.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp [tivo.com]
You wanna legislate on how someone builds their product? If you don't like, don't buy a TiVo. Flex that consumer muscle.
This really is a childish world view. Yadda yadda yadda as rhetoric.