Help
Sign In
drm
July 2009 
Linux, Open Source, Free Software and Politics
Posted on Sep 29th, 2006
by 
Anand
Anand
I've been using linux as my primary desktop operating system since early 1996. I used to be a UNIX guy before that and so the transition from UNIX on a Sparcstation to linux on a PC was quite straightforward.
When you run linux, you almost cannot help getting involved in various open source communities and you cannot help knowing more than you ever wanted to know about various open source licenses such as the GNU GPL, BSD, QPL, MPL etc.
Which brings me to an intriguing battle shaping up between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) on the one hand and Linus Torvalds and the linux kernel developers on the other. The battle is over the next version of the GNU GPL license version 3 - to be precise - up from the current version 2.
The FSF wants, in the name of freedom, to ensure that "Tivoization" does not occur. What is "Tivoization" you ask? Essentially, "Tivoization" is what happens when you buy a device like a Tivo which runs linux and which you cannot modify in the sense of adding or removing all software because the device is locked down. It has cryptographically signed binaries on it which are not easy to circumvent.
From the FSF perspective (which is further elaborated here on groklaw), they do not want to allow companies which use the GNU GPL version 3 to sell devices with cryptographically signed binaries which you cannot modify and then execute on the same hardware.
From Linus Torvalds' perspective and the linux kernel developers' perspective, they do not want to place restrictions on device manufacturers in terms of what the manufacturers can or cannot do with the devices that they sell. Cryptography is now a basic technology they argue and if you (as a consumer) don't like digital rights management (DRM) on the device that you buy, then don't buy it. Support manufacturers that do not have DRM on the devices that they sell.
This seems a legitimate debate, right? I've been following it to some extent. What elevated the debate recently is a set of responses by Linus Torvalds which confirm (for me) that I was right in having him as one of my heroes.
His argument which you can follow here and here is essentially simple. Even if what Tivo did was wrong, trying to stop future Tivos is a greater wrong. It will do more harm than good and will place the FSF in an authoritarian position since they will in effect be passing a draconian law that manufacturers (who use the GPL version 3) would struggle to abide by. He also points out that the GPL version 2 was essentially about "share and share alike" and was very libertarian in that sense whereas the GPL version 3 would be far more authoritarian.
Linus reveals himself to be a passionate moderate which is exactly my politics as well! There's a huge difference between a pragmatist and a passionate or radical moderate. Tony Blair is a pragmatist who compromises between the EU and the US. Linus Torvalds is a radical moderate who shouts from the rooftops when necessary.
Perhaps a simple solution to the problem is to rename the licenses. Call the GPL v2 the GPL libertarian license and GPL v3 the GPL authoritarian license :-) Or pick less incendiary names but have both licenses running in parallel but with no name confusion.
Update (2006/10/02): groklaw has a new discussion on this topic which clears up quite a few misunderstandings. The fault lines between Free Software and Open Source are also front and center here.
When you run linux, you almost cannot help getting involved in various open source communities and you cannot help knowing more than you ever wanted to know about various open source licenses such as the GNU GPL, BSD, QPL, MPL etc.
Which brings me to an intriguing battle shaping up between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) on the one hand and Linus Torvalds and the linux kernel developers on the other. The battle is over the next version of the GNU GPL license version 3 - to be precise - up from the current version 2.
The FSF wants, in the name of freedom, to ensure that "Tivoization" does not occur. What is "Tivoization" you ask? Essentially, "Tivoization" is what happens when you buy a device like a Tivo which runs linux and which you cannot modify in the sense of adding or removing all software because the device is locked down. It has cryptographically signed binaries on it which are not easy to circumvent.
From the FSF perspective (which is further elaborated here on groklaw), they do not want to allow companies which use the GNU GPL version 3 to sell devices with cryptographically signed binaries which you cannot modify and then execute on the same hardware.
From Linus Torvalds' perspective and the linux kernel developers' perspective, they do not want to place restrictions on device manufacturers in terms of what the manufacturers can or cannot do with the devices that they sell. Cryptography is now a basic technology they argue and if you (as a consumer) don't like digital rights management (DRM) on the device that you buy, then don't buy it. Support manufacturers that do not have DRM on the devices that they sell.
This seems a legitimate debate, right? I've been following it to some extent. What elevated the debate recently is a set of responses by Linus Torvalds which confirm (for me) that I was right in having him as one of my heroes.
His argument which you can follow here and here is essentially simple. Even if what Tivo did was wrong, trying to stop future Tivos is a greater wrong. It will do more harm than good and will place the FSF in an authoritarian position since they will in effect be passing a draconian law that manufacturers (who use the GPL version 3) would struggle to abide by. He also points out that the GPL version 2 was essentially about "share and share alike" and was very libertarian in that sense whereas the GPL version 3 would be far more authoritarian.
Linus reveals himself to be a passionate moderate which is exactly my politics as well! There's a huge difference between a pragmatist and a passionate or radical moderate. Tony Blair is a pragmatist who compromises between the EU and the US. Linus Torvalds is a radical moderate who shouts from the rooftops when necessary.
Perhaps a simple solution to the problem is to rename the licenses. Call the GPL v2 the GPL libertarian license and GPL v3 the GPL authoritarian license :-) Or pick less incendiary names but have both licenses running in parallel but with no name confusion.
Update (2006/10/02): groklaw has a new discussion on this topic which clears up quite a few misunderstandings. The fault lines between Free Software and Open Source are also front and center here.
Access: PublicTagged with: linux, open source, free software, FSF, GPL, Linus Torvalds, DRM, Tivoization, radical moderate, politics, groklaw, license
Anand, I, as well, heartily agree with your position, and Linus’. Linus’ logic is sound; he’s taking an integral position.
The unfortunate problem in America today is that a compasionate, centrist view, that attempts to employ skillfull means in service of raising the *entire* spiral of development, is marginalized by the mythologies of *both* the right and the left.
Our own business is based on just such a GPL 2 device (www.em7.com the device, www.it-on.biz our business). I can’t get into parts of the code on the EM7 device we purchased. Is it irritating? Absolutely. But is the EM7 NMS appliance valuable to us despite that irritation? Oh yeah it is… And I’m VERY glad it exists.
PS, checkout: http://radicalmiddle.com/