Kernel sources GPL3

El 17/04/13 22:20, name at domain escribió:
> This is purely a technical question from a legal angle, personal whims
> and opinions are not relevant on this one.
>

Legal question have legal opinions. So...these are my opinions.

> If Linus did switch the GPLv3, would that force him to make all
> releases with all code contained therein 100% open source?
>

Yes. But he soid he would not because he says people should be free to
enslave others (in other words).

> I am asking this from a OpenBSD perspective in that it is a lot easier
> to maintain a complete operating system that is purely open source
> with zero binary blobs thrown in the mix.

OpenBSD does have binary blobs on its kernel (the last time I checked).

> I don't consider Linux a complete operating system

Linux is not an operating system. GNU is an operating system. Linux is a
kernel.

> since the people with commit access to kernel source as well as
> libraries are not the same ones who put out installable releases for
> the end user like the BSD's do.

If Torvalds decided to license Linux as GNU GPLv3, he he wouldn't have
to realease the code to all the kernel because he is the person that has
the rights to the code. He would not enforce the license on himself as
he does now with GNU GPLv2.

> Linux is not centralized like the BSD's, that is why it is false to
> call each of the BSD's a distribution, they are each their own
> complete operating system.
>
> But I look at projects like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Replicant, Trisquel,
> Parabola, and with all of them being 100% open source in terms of
> what's included in the installation, and that they are a lot better
> for security and anonymity or privacy. So this got me to wondering, if
> Linus did switch to GPLv3, and I know full well there would be all
> kinds of fallout as a result of it, but if Torvalds did change the
> license would that physically force all Linux distributions and all
> Linux based development to be 100% open source?

It would depend on him.

>
> For technical reasons I do not care about if something is "free" as
> much as I care about if something is open source or not.
>
>

You are confusing free with gratis. We use free as freedom respecting.
So, almost all opensource software is free software. The exception is
tivoized software. The basic difference is not between open source and
free software but between the intentions of both movements. The free
software movement's objective is users' freedom. The open source
movement's objective is better quality and cheap software. They would
give up freedom for the sake of functionality and price. We would give
up functionality or price for the sake of freedom. They are thinking of
instant benefit in spite of long term servitude. We are thinking of
durable benefit in spite of short term inconvenience.

--
Saludos libres,

Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a

Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.

>I look at projects like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Replicant, Trisquel, Parabola, and with all of them being 100% open source in terms of what's included in the installation, and that they are a lot better for security and anonymity or privacy.

Unfortunately the BSDs are not free nor "open source" http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#BSD

>They are thinking of instant benefit in spite of long term servitude. We are thinking of durable benefit in spite of short term inconvenience.

Very well put!

There's an important misunderstanding here: the GPLv2 doesn't have a fixed loophole allowing binary blobs. Richard Stallman's opinion is that binary blobs were already a violation of the GPLv2, and if they weren't, nothing about the GPLv3 would change that.

As far as I'm aware, the reason Torvalds chooses to continue to use version 2 is because of the defense it adds against patents and TIVOization. There are people who decide that this is restrictive or something (I really don't understand the position, to be honest), and Torvalds and the other Linux developers are some of them. Of course, since control-freak Torvalds refuses to even allow later versions of the GPL to be used (which is the normal way to use the GPL), it's a terrible justification in his case, but I think that's the justification nonetheless.

By the way, I'm pretty sure all BSD distributions include nonfree firmware blobs. Note that there's a difference in terminology here; "blob" does not mean the same thing in BSD as it does in Linux. In Linux, a "blob" usually refers to binary-only firmware, not drivers.

> but if Torvalds did change the license would that physically force
> all Linux distributions and all Linux based development to be 100%
> open source?

The license of a kernel doesn't affect userland programs (otherwise
Windows programmers would be in serious trouble).