[TriLUG] GPLv3 -- What do you think?

[Rick DeNatale]

I've been doing a bit of random sampling of the linux kernel sources
and it looks like the whole question of which (if any) gpl license
applies is a mess.

The way you are supposed to put code under the GPL is to include
commentary within each source code module which claims copyright by
the author(s), grants a license by referring to the GPL either any
version, a particular version, or a particular version and any later
version. You should also put in commentary disclaiming warranty.

Here are some examples of copyright/license statements in the actual
source code.

These have NO license granted at all.
Linux/kernel/acct.c
* (C) Copyright 1995 - 1997 Marco van Wieringen - ELM Consultancy B.V.

Linux/kernel/fork.c, panic.c, sys.c
*  Copyright (C) 1991, 1992  Linus Torvalds

Linux/kernel/capability.c
* Copyright (C) 1997  Andrew Main <zefram at fysh.org>

Linux/kernel/kthread.c
*   Copyright (C) 2004 IBM Corporation, Rusty Russell.

No license OR copyright claim
Linux/kernel/dma.c
* Written by Hennus Bergman, 1992.

Abitrary version of the GPL
linux/kernel/cpu.c
* (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Rusty Russell
*
* This code is licenced under the GPL.

v2 or any later version

Linux/kernel/config.c
* Copyright (C) 2002 Khalid Aziz <khalid_aziz at hp.com>
 * Copyright (C) 2002 Randy Dunlap <rddunlap at osdl.org>
 * Copyright (C) 2002 Al Stone <ahs3 at fc.hp.com>
* Copyright (C) 2002 Hewlett-Packard Company
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
* your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
* WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, GOOD TITLE or
* NON INFRINGEMENT.  See the GNU General Public License for more
* details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Only this last one shows the full licensing language recommended by FSF.

Linus himself doesn't seem to include a license statement in his code.

In any event, as I said earlier, any code which is currently licensed
under GPL v2, even if it includes the "or any later version" language,
or doesn't state a version, wouldn't impose any usage restrictions in
GPL v3 since the user is free to choose an earlier version to comply
with.

I do think that, regardless of whether or not Linus has done all the
right things in terms of putting the correct commentary in his code,
he's on the right path in terms of not wanting his code to fall under
GPL v3 by default before it's finalized and the implications
understood.

The crux of the biscuit is how the language regarding DRM relates to
other valid uses of the same technology such as public key encryption.
 It's also not clear whether or not the language requiring authors to
provide "any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install
and/or execute the source code of the work," really does imply that
private signing keys must be made public.

It seems to me that there is enough new stuff/potential cruft in v3
including substantial new usage restrictions (where's the freedom
there?) so as to recommend caution, and perhaps even a retraction of
the "or any later version" language in new releases of existing code. 
Better to wait to see how v3 comes out in the end than trust all will
turn out well.

--
Rick DeNatale

Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site
http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/