"Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support

[Ericg]

Me neither, I've seen no indication of Linus or any other core Linux devs have expressed any interest in re-licencing. Quite the opposite, every chance Linus gets he seems to highlight his choice of GPLv2 as a key aspect of Linux success.

Of course this doesn't have to be an issue either way, if the kernel devs are fine with this licence then there's really nothing else to say. They set the rules for how to enforce the licencing as they are the copyright holders, gpl-violations which reported this licence incompability has no sway and neither does FSF, again it's up to the copyright holders (Linux devs).

Beyond that, judging by the mailing-list exchange this floating point emulation is mostly being done in user-space these days and as such it seems likely this in-kernel library will be deprecated anyway, so very much a storm in a teacup. The real action in the mailing list was the angry spat between Russel King and M?ns Rullg?rd, what was that about?

Linux License CANT change. EVERY single contributor EVER would have to okay the license change and any licensee who refused or couldnt be contacted would have to have every commit they ever did redone by someone else who DID agree to the license change. Thats one of the upsides of a CLA (i dont really agree with them over all, just pointing out that a license change is easy for CLA projects). For that same reason its why im leery of linus' attitude of "GPL v2 and only." because a better license may come along that addresses a real problem with the GPLv2 and then its a giant pain in the ass to move to that new license.

[XorEaxEax]

I can't imagine Linux license ever changing.

Me neither, I've seen no indication of Linus or any other core Linux devs have expressed any interest in re-licencing. Quite the opposite, every chance Linus gets he seems to highlight his choice of GPLv2 as a key aspect of Linux success.

Of course this doesn't have to be an issue either way, if the kernel devs are fine with this licence then there's really nothing else to say. They set the rules for how to enforce the licencing as they are the copyright holders, gpl-violations which reported this licence incompability has no sway and neither does FSF, again it's up to the copyright holders (Linux devs).

Beyond that, judging by the mailing-list exchange this floating point emulation is mostly being done in user-space these days and as such it seems likely this in-kernel library will be deprecated anyway, so very much a storm in a teacup. The real action in the mailing list was the angry spat between Russel King and M?ns Rullg?rd, what was that about?

[Teho]

He made this choice, he (and the other copyright holders of Linux) are the only ones who can change the licencing should they want to (very doubtful)..

I can't imagine Linux license ever changing. According to Ohloh.net Linux has had contributions from almost 11000 developers. Getting approval from even a fraction of that would take ages... not to mentiont that most of the copyright is owned by companies (500+) and who knows what kind of deals they have made with each others. People have died, are unavailable, companies have went under and so on and so forth. So even if they wanted to change the license it would be almost impossible.

[XorEaxEax]

You're obviously stupid, because it is almost a given that it is NECESSARY to fork the GPL to ALLOW COMPATIBILITY with licenses that indemnify persons or organizations.

You are obviously stupid, the problem here (if there is any) is that Linus chose to licence Linux under 'GPL v2 ONLY' rather than often used 'GPLv2 or later'. He did this because he thinks GPLv2 is a perfect licence as is, which is fine. I seriously doubt that Torvalds will change the licencing because of this library being licenced incompatible with GPLv2 which is the licence he again think is 'perfect'.

Either way this has nothing to do with FSF, they can't tell Linus what licence to use or whether or not he allows 'or later'. He made this choice, he (and the other copyright holders of Linux) are the only ones who can change the licencing should they want to (very doubtful). Also FSF can't force the Linux devs to do anything in this regard should they think this is not a real licence issue.

In fact, you may want to look up the reason why Torvalds REJECTED v3. I'll give you a hint: It has NOTHING to do with indemnification.

The reason he objected to GPLv3 was about the anti-tivoization clause.

[Ibidem]

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-April/162339.html

Apparently Linus thinks this is just the FSF nitpicking.

[bridgman]

My initial thought was the same as recent posts above, ie that the disclaimers were similar to X11 or BSD license text, but I suspect the key issue is use of the word "indemnification".

IANAL but "indemnification" seems to imply something a lot stronger than the usual "it's not my fault, man" license text -- eg responsibility for covering the indemnified party's costs if something goes really wrong.

[GreatEmerald]

FSF is being a bunch of nitwitty asshats here, without a freakin' shadow of doubt.

I think that the problem they see here is not that it's provided as-is (that's part of the GPL in the first place), but that indemnification is personal. That's just really not needed.

[Ishayu]

It has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.

The clause:


In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to. In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.

That clause has a stark resemblance to:

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM ?AS IS? WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

FSF is being a bunch of nitwitty asshats here, without a freakin' shadow of doubt.

[dee.]

Linus has lots of opinions. His opinion about GPLv3 however is entirely irrelevant, since he does not and can not single-handedly decide the licensing of the Linux kernel.

[droidhacker]

It has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.

The clause:


In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to.[B] In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.

The FSF did exactly that it is called GPLv3....

You may consider actually reading GPLv3....
It is a WHOLE LOT different than just indemnification.

In fact, you may want to look up the reason why Torvalds REJECTED v3. I'll give you a hint: It has NOTHING to do with indemnification.