Copying my comment from reddit when this was discussed last week:
> As the thread linked shows though, Linus cares about the GPL for what it gains him not what it gains the user. The spirit of the FSF and the GPL is for the user, not the dev.
>He only cares about actions that lead to code getting back into the upstream kernel, whereas others(and the FSF) care primarily about people being able to view and modify the code they use and that is running on their devices.
>I'd argue he likes the GPL for what it gains him but isn't really a GPL/FSF advocate.
>Edit: It is important to note that this is one of the core reasons Greg/Linus and the FSF/SFC disagree I think. Karen from the SFC had an IMO excellent response in that chain that matches my thoughts if you are curious.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4zp56l/gpl_defense_i...
I (the end-user) get a device with a blob that looks like a Linux (the kernel). I don't get any freedoms (but to whine to vendor). And I get a message from the very head of kernel developers that they aren't interested in me having anything.
Now, it's also true most users don't give a damn about their freedoms. And those who do are such a tiny minority they can be just ignored - unlike the valuable corporate partners.
The kernel developers aren't on the hook at all here. No one told you to buy a specific device.
Except for devices that are hackable in practice, but aren't much so because of this heartwarming attitude.
It's not unusual that someone had managed to build the kernel that boots (and even works well) but doesn't know how to interface some hardware. E.g. a hardware NAT engine of a SOHO router, so FLOSS firmwares have to NAT in software. Or some sensor on a phone. The secret is in the kernel and that kernel's source's supposed to be available but it isn't.
Your beef is with device vendors, not Linus.
Sure thing, if I don't have access to the kernel, then it's all irrelevant. We only consider the cases when the device is actually hackable (despite whatever its vendor says).
Maybe proprietary software companies are happy with the current situation, but as a user who cares about my freedom, I'm very unhappy with the current situation.
> Becoming more militant about enforcement will simply cause most corporate partners to disengage.
Maybe people should spend less time feeling sorry for corporations and more time considering users. If you're someone who has a shitty Bluetooth light bulb running a version of GNU/Linux, the person who has given you that device has taken away your software freedom and everything that comes along with that. Having software freedom means you can completely eradicate vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence from the technology you use, as well as being able to create a community and help yourself and others as a result. Not having software freedom means that you are alone as a user of a product, at the mercy of the company that gave you that device.
You see this all the time, and it worries me that it takes Matthew Garrett posting about how insecure this stuff is for people to even _consider_ that there is a serious user-facing problem here. Yes, IoT is generally not doing well, but there are legitimate uses of this stuff (people who have disabilities for example) and not caring about their software freedom is a serious social issue.
> Most users comply with the license. Users have access to interesting and useful source code and have never been restricted from accessing the kernel.
The GPL has no restrictions on end users. It only has restrictions for distributors, to ensure that any eventual end user of a piece of software will have software freedom and all of the benefits that come with that.
How? You don't have a right to modify the device you purchased. You don't have a right to manufacture a clone of the device and run your patched code on it. The vendor can happily decline patches from you. So can Linus.
All you will have is the right to inspect code they used and learn from it or reuse it in a lightbulb you choose to manufacture that doesn't violate some other IP the original vendor has on the original bulb.
There is absolutely nothing about the GPL that grants you any particular freedom regarding the specific light bulb you purchased. If it sucks, it will continue to suck.
Actually, at least in some jurisdictions, you do. What you don't have is an obligation that device vendor helps you - unless they took some obligations to do so (and GPL is one).
But it's entirely another story that they had chosen to use GNU or Linux bits in their software.
I absolutely have every right in the world to do whatever I want with any device I own (baring things like tweaking WiFi to violate FCC rules). Why would you even say that?
Yes. In fact, isn't this exactly why GPLv3 has the anti-TiVoization clause? Because TiVo under GPLv2 were entirely in their right to deny user-modified GPL-licensed software from running on their hardware.
Under GPLv3 you have the right to modify the device you purchased if the manufacturer (or the person you bought it from) has the same ability. Linus doesn't like the GPLv3 for what appears to be I-dont-care-about-user-freedom reasons, which is why only parts of the kernel are under GPLv2-or-later. But that's the main reason why I make all of my projects GPLv3, so that users are protected in this instance as well.
I see it as the Software Conservancy spitting some reality into Linus' Cheerios. But then again, I've been forced to replace devices because Qualcomm/Mediatek/Obi/D-Link decided GPL compliance wasn't their cup of tea. So I'm probably biased.
They don't even get their legal costs back most of the time.
"Financial penalties are a legitimate tool to achieve compliance when used judiciously. Logically, if the only penalty for violation is simply compliance with the original rules, bad actors will just wait for an enforcement action before even reading the GPL. That social model for copyleft and its enforcement is untenable and unsustainable. An enforcement system without a financial penalty favors bad actors over good ones, since the latter bear the minimal (but non-trivial) staffing cost of compliant distribution while the former avoid it. Copyright holders (or their designated agent) therefore are reasonable to request compensation for the cost of their time providing the compliance education that accompanies any constructive enforcement action. Nevertheless, pursuing damages to the full extent allowed by copyright law is usually unnecessary, and can in some cases work against the purpose of copyleft."
Based on their 990 forms that they've submitted to the IRS in 2011-2013, they are averaging $100,000/year in settlements. Which is pretty impressive considering that they don't develop software.
I do realize that they have other sources of income, via donations and conference services and what not. But that doesn't change the fact that their legal activities bring them revenue.
Why would it? If they are not violating the terms of the license, what would change?
Increased vigilance in enforcement of anything almost invariably means greater incidence of prosecuting non-violators, causing them to incur costs to establish that they are not in violation.
In the case of Linux, this increases the expected costs of using the kernel even in accord with the license.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
Enforcers often are (or claim to be) interested only in compliance. Their efforts to secure compliance where they believe compliance is lacking incur costs that would not otherwise exist, even where compliance already exists.
As mentioned in the parent article and other linked discussions, there is not certainty in litigation. The terms of the license are complex, and there can be healthy debate over what is and is not a violation.
Membership in the 5% and 95% is not clear until after litigation. You do not get to decide that you are in compliance. You get to take actions which you understand to be in compliance. If someone disagrees, they can sue.
Taking a stance of aggressive litigation will make everyone think twice about using software that opens them up to expensive litigation.
No, it really isn't. The idea that a company that is complying would walk away because those that aren't are gone after is foolish. It's like saying a freelancer shouldn't pursue people who stiff them on payment, because other potential clients might hear about it, and choose not to hire them.
And, be clear, egregious violations aren't the concern. The concern is if you see a freelancer constantly partaking of expensive or just annoying audits on good faith partners. It can drive folks away.
This is why the lines are drawn at 95/5. If it were actually the other direction, things would be different.
I don't believe he's being disingenuous. What's happening is that Linus, and Greg, see the GPL as a tool, a lever if you will, to multiply the amount of code contributed to Linux and other open systems. From that engineering POV they see it as an important contributor to the success of Linux. As a consequence of that, they are in no hurry to change it as it meets their need.
What they clearly don't agree with is the political motivations that drove the creation of the license in the first place. Nor do they appear to be overly concerned, on either a moral or legal level, about its violation. My guess is that, while it continues to help in their endeavour, they will continue to support it. If it were to get in the way, they would feel forced to re-think it. What I read in the thread is the view that they are concerned that a significant increase in legal actions could become a problem for them.
I have some sympathy for both sides. I'd probably err on the side of Linus and Greg as my pragmatism generally outweighs my activism.
I.e. corporations get all the benefit of free contributions, but don't feel any need to contribute in return unless they happen to feel like doing so.
And "Let's not scare the corporations" is the new "enforcement."
Sweet deal for them.
No, it's GPL. It's a perfectly reasonable, and not uncommon, strategy to use legal instruments for protective or signalling reasons but not as an offensive weapon.
Patents are a similar example. They're often held defensively and for cultural signalling. When they're pursued aggressively, it's generally considered trolling.
And yeah, it's a sweet deal. TBH I think that's the point - a lot of people get a sweet deal, including corporations. Where the argument seems to lie is how much should we care about free loaders if everyone's getting some candy.
The point is that people going to the SFC for help are clearly "not getting some candy", otherwise they wouldn't be bitching. A "non-enforcement" deal is much, much sweeter for corporations and sociopaths than it is for people doing the actual work.
Go look at the kernel version in Android, even Android 7.0...kernel 3.10. We might be overestimating how important linux is to Android.
OEMs that produce devices end up doing non-free things writing checks to companies like Micorosft for intellectual property, so it isn't like AOSP delivers on the promise to let anyone make a phone, GPL kernel or not.
If Google actually follows through with this Fuchsia project, do you think OEMs will balk because the kernel isn't GPL'd? No one will care.
How do you figure that? The only way this could apply is if the "good partners" are violating the GPL on the sly, or with a wink and a nod (not bloodly likely) which would make them not so good anymore.
The GPL has no reason to exist if its terms are not enforced.
We've already seen this with the GPLv3/AGPL. Really outside of the FSF, the only adoption is in dual-licensers who use it to drive purchases of the alternatively-licensed sources.
Not true. There are tons of projects that use GPLv3+ or GPLv2+. There's certainly adoption.
The only way that makes sense is if people thought that the GPL was the thing to use was due to it being toothless, a notion that it's strictly better to disabuse people of.
If it means lawsuits, yes. Companies will either seek out a non-GPL solution, or they will be even more secretive about their use of linux. Either way, linux loses and 95% of linux users lose....and the violations will continue anyway.
You've created a catch 22 here.
Linus doesn't care about the odd scofflaw because they don't interfere with his goal. The FSF on the other hand cannot abide scofflaws because their only goal is to eliminate them.
Linus probably doesn't care about the odd scofflaw because he has better things to do (like maintain a kernel) than to juggle lawsuits.
This is why the SF Conservancy exists.
In addition, he has in mind that companies can abuse the GPLv2 and just do code dumps.
It makes sense what he has in mind but his attitude is too much drama.
He always wanted a copyleft license because it enabled kernel development to really take off by enabling him to make use of other people's contributions, and he's always been consistent about that.
I bet that what he really regrets, though, is not requiring copyright assignment for inclusion into mainline, so rogue developers can't just join up with the SFC and sue people against his wishes.
Linus is right, there is no crisis in GPL violation. There will always be violators. Any law or contract or license will be violated. Becoming more militant about enforcement will simply cause most corporate partners to disengage. Most users comply with the license. Users have access to interesting and useful source code and have never been restricted from accessing the kernel. The kernel team is on good terms with most corporate users. Going after the 5% of violators will change how the kernel team interacts with the 95% of good partners.
The only thing Linus seems to be disingenuous about is his claim of support for the GPLv2. My guess is he secretly wishes he had chosen a different, non-copyleft license.