Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Sunday 27 May 2007, Isidore Ducasse <ducasse.isidore@×××××.com> wrote 
about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64]  Re: Sun and GPL':
> le Sun, 27 May 2007 23:32:49 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> a écrit:
> > They ARE considering dual-licensing Solaris under GPLv3, however,
> > which they've been working closely with the FSF on.  Of course that's
> > not a given until it's out, but it'd definitely widen the interest
> > base (I for one may well be interested, especially if Linux stays
> > GPLv2 only).
>
> You mean the bare kernel, right? Solaris' kernel could be an alternative
> to linux?

Solaris' kernel *is* an alternative to Linux.  It's available under an OSI 
license in at least three distributions (including the one from Sun).

> Is the latter really different from the *BSD's?

From what I understand, yes.  They both have the old-skool Unix flavor, 
that reminds you that GNU really is *not* Unix, but their feature sets and 
userland are very different.

> it appears to practice monolithic
> kernel.

IIRC, that's correct about all the *BSDs and Solaris.

> What would be different in running a GPLv3 kernel? I've read
> about the anti-DRM part of it; is there some other reason you/we could
> be interested in it?

The anti-DRM stuff has been scaled back quite a bit in the last draft.  As 
is proper, it no longer prevents the kernel from being part of 
an "effective content protection mechanism" or otherwise restricting how 
GPLv3 licensed software is *used*.  It does still prevent a distributor 
from giving you something you could theoretically modify but disallowing 
the use of modified versions in the same context.  (Or, at least it 
tries.)

> BTW isn't there a technical issue licensing a single version of a soft
> against two incompatible licenses?

No.  The QPL is quite incompatible with the GPL and Qt has been 
dual-licensed for some time under their disjunction.  There's very few 
technical issues involved with licensing at all, anyway.  "Is a kernel 
module a derivative work of the kernel?" and "Does dynamic linking against 
(e.g.) readline produce a derivative work of readline?" are /legal/ 
issues, not technical ones.  For the record the accepted answers right now 
are: "Yes" (per the kernel hackers -- making fglrx and nvidia kernel 
modules impossible to legally distribute) and "Yes" (per the FSF -- 
although it doesn't matter much since that work is never distributed)

> Or did you mean dual-licensing GPLv2
> and GPLv3?

FWIW, these will be incompatible.  The additional restrictions the GPLv3 
places on distributors w.r.t. DRM are not allowed by strict reading of the 
GPLv2 and the GPLv2 doesn't allow additional restrictions to be added.  It 
is harder to argue that w.r.t. software patents, since the GPLv2 does 
contain a section the FSF claims is an implicit patent licence.

Still, dual-licensing under incompatible licenses is fine and I think many 
(but maybe not most) developers that currently license their code under 
GPLv2 will be willing to license under the GPLv3 as well (or instead).

> > Of course Linus and the other kernel devs were originally very much
> > against early GPLv3 drafts.
>
> Is it a matter of diverging positions towards industrial partners/users?

The problems Linus' had with early drafts were two-fold:
1) Early drafts has usage restrictions, although the license didn't have to 
be accepted to use what was covered.  Usage restrictions violate the DFSG 
and the Free Software Definition.  Also, the way the license was worded 
your usage wasn't restricted until you tried to distribute, which is just 
odd.
2) Linus had a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal terms involved and 
believed strongly that using the GPLv3 would require any distributor make 
use of PKI to disclose their private keys.  In particular, he was under 
the impression that packages signed with GPG keys (like Debian uses as a 
security layer) would require they publish the key used for signing.

It seems the license has been fixed on both counts.  The usage restrictions 
have been dropped, and the remaining text concerning DRM has been changed 
to mean the same thing while being clearer to laypersons.  (And clarity to 
laypersons is very important; developers are more likely to use a license 
they can read and understand themselves.)

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@××××××××××.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/