OPEN SOURCE BLOGROLL
RECENT ARTICLES

Open Source Weblog

Torvalds explains his love for the GPL (v2)
February 03, 2006

The ongoing discussion about Linus Torvalds' decision not to use version 3 of the GPL for the Linux kernel has thrown up some interesting points about digital rights management and how it should be dealt with by the free/open source community.

While the Free Software Foundation is against DRM (describing it as "fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the free software movement"), Torvalds is less concerned with forcing that spirit on others. "It boils down to this: we wrote the software. That's the only part I care about, and perhaps (at least to me) more importantly, because it's the only part we created, it's the only part that I feel we have a moral right to control," he wrote in a posting to the Linux kernel mailing list this week.

The discussion has also prompted Torvalds to explain why he chose the GPL v2 over other available open source licenses in the first place. It makes for fascinating reading, and a real insight into Torvalds' attitude to open source licensing:

"My initial reason for my original license (which was also "you must make changes available under the same license") was not crusading, but simple reciprocity. I give out source code - you can use it if you reciprocate.

In other words, to me, the GPL "give back source" is an issue of fairness. I don't ask for anything more than I give. I ask for source code and the ability to incorporate your changes back into _my_ use, but I don't want to limit _your_ use in any way.

So in my worldview - not as a crusader - the GPLv2 is _fair_. It asks others to give back exactly what I myself offer: the source code to play with. I don't ask for control over their other projects (be they hardware or software), and I don't ask for control over copyrights (in the kernel, people are _encouraged_ to keep their copyrights, rather than signing them over to me).

I only ask for exact reciprocity of what I give: the license for me to freely use the changes to source code that I initiated.

The GPLv3 fundamentally changes that balance, in my opinion. It asks for more than it gives. It no longer asks for just source back, it asks for _control_ over whatever system you used the source in.

See? I think the GPLv3 makes _perfect_ sense as a conversion tool. But as a "please reciprocate in kind" tool, the GPLv2 is better.

Now, my very earliest original license (and the GPLv2) fit my notion of reciprocity, and as mentioned, that was the reason I _originally_ selected that over the BSD license."

Torvalds goes on to explain why he feels the GPL v2 encourages merging of forked projects and how important it was that the GPL was a "known entity". For more details, see here.

  Email this entry to a friend

Posted by Matthew Aslett on February 3, 2006 06:00 PM

« A complete open source stack? | Main | Who drives open source, vendors or users? »

Comments

Advertisement
back to top