p2pnet - rss feed: Linux under GPL version 3?
p2p news / p2pnet: Linux creator Linus Torvalds is widely reported to have said No to converting Linux to version 3 of the General Public License because he doesn’t like the DRM implications.
But that may not be his last word and in fact, "the debate over Linux and GPL 3 is far from over," writes Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (right) on Linux-Watch.
He has GPL3 principal author and FSF (Free Software Foundation) Richard Stallman saying he doesn’t understand Torvald’s objections and in any case, "The Linux developers can decide whether to allow use of Linux under GPL version 3. This won’t directly affect other parts of the system."
After breaking down Torvald’s arguments in detail, Vaughan-Nichols points out it’s not GPL 3’s DRM section per se that concerns Torvalds, quoting him as saying:
"Just to make it clear: It’s not actually the new section 3 (’3. Digital Restrictions Management.’) That I object to, like some people seem to think. That section I don’t even worry too much about. The part of the GPLv3 that I’m most worried about is the new parts to section 1."
Linux-Watch says the section that troubles Torvalds reads:
"Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. …"
This, says Torvalds, "is the one that seems to disallow digitally signed binaries (or rather: you can sign the binaries any way you want, but you have to make your private keys available)."
But, adds Vaughan-Nichols, "If this section is removed, then Torvalds believes that, while practically speaking it may be difficult to bring Linux under GPL 3 due to the sheer number of copyright owners, the kernel might yet be moved to the new GPL.
Also See:
DRM implications - Torvalds says No to GPL3, January 27, 2006
Linux-Watch - Torvalds hasn’t ruled out GPL 3 for Linux, February 8, 2006
February 9th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I’m not sure what the meaning of the “digitally signed binaries” is used for, but it appears that it doesn’t refer to the private keys of someone like Linus but rather the DRM in the operating system or the source code.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:52 am
> I’m not sure what the meaning of the “digitally signed binaries” is
> used for, but it appears that it doesn’t refer to the private keys of
> someone like Linus but rather the DRM in the operating system or
> the source code.
It means that if you distribute GPL 3 code in a situation where the compiled code is some how verified, for example by checksum or cryptographic digital signature, you must provide a means for the person who is using the code to replace it and retain all original functionality.
A real life situation could be a stand alone device, such as a cellular phone, which verifies a cryptographic signature of the kernel binary or any other GPL software running on the device (such as libraries or applications), and then refuses to function or runs with reduced functionality if that verification fails. In that case, it would be necessary to provide the private signing keys used to sign the binary in order to comply with GPL v3, but not version 2.
That problem could easily be solved by using a standard checksum which could be changed by the modifier, thus allowing modification of the software running on the device. I don’t know whether it would be acceptable for the device to simply present a warning that it is running unsigned code but not reduce any actual functionality, much the way that Windows XP now does. That would be the method I would prefer. That way I am notified that something has been changed, and can take appropriate action if I was not expecting the change. Although, I’m afraid, it would be much to tempting for manufacturers to reduce functionality in that situation. In fact there are rumors that Windows Vista will refuse to allow the use of unsigned drivers.
Of course, the issue here is that preventing modification of the code is the goal that most manufacturers of stand alone equipment running GPL software are trying to prevent. The problem with this is that most people agree that while it strictly adheres to the conditions in GPL v2, it does not follow the spirit of the license.
According to the article: Linus believes that it is alright to prevent people from running modified GPL software in certain situations. While Richard Stallman (RMS) believes that if it is GPL, you should have the right to not only change it, but also to run it in the same context as the original version. I happen to agree with RMS on this one.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:02 am
This didn’t particularly belong in the last post, but I thought it was important to mention:
> In fact there are rumors that Windows Vista will refuse to allow the
> use of unsigned drivers.
If Windows Vista does refuse to allow the use of unsigned drivers; That would mean that you can’t run the beta drivers from your favorite graphics card company that haven’t been WHQL certified and signed yet, or even drivers like btwincap (http://btwincap.sourceforge.net/) the open source Brooktree based capture card drivers that are far superior to the ones supplied by the manufacturers of such cards.
I can only speculate as to the reasoning behind such a move, but I’m sure that it has to do with preventing the use of drivers which do not enforce Windows DRM.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
“I can only speculate as to the reasoning behind such a move, but I’m sure that it has to do with preventing the use of drivers which do not enforce Windows DRM.”
sure and you get to charge the hardware vendors for certifying their hardware…..You didn’t think it was just about getting the media cartels money did you? No it’s about getting more money from the customer through the hardware venders and the media cartels.