Open Sources | Rodrigues & Urlocker » GPLv3 and the worst of intentions

July 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)

GPLv3 and the worst of intentions

TAGS: Open Source

So, the big flap today is that Linus doesn't like GPLv3 (Draft 2), as Stephen Shankland (CNET) reports. As it turns out, there's much to dislike in GPLv3. Linus just happens to not like the hardware regulations it puts forth:

GPLv3 "basically says, 'We don't want access just to your software modifications. We want access to your hardware, too,'" Torvalds said. "I don't think it's my place as a software developer to judge how hardware works around it."

Nor do I. You can feel in the GPL a desire to force people to think like Stallman (and Eben, for whom I have a huge amount of respect). That "force" is fine, albeit a little uncomfortable at times, when applied to its direct responsibility: software modifications of GPL'd software. It becomes irresponsible and overly ambitious when it extends to hardware.

This is true, in part, because it puts the FSF in the game of judging intentions. A license should never try to gauge intentions - it's ill-equipped to do so.

This same attempt is made by those who denigrate "attribution licenses" like SugarCRM's. Some cry foul because they believe the intent of the license is to make it difficult to commercially profit from Sugar's code without giving them a share. Whatever the intent (which, frankly, is probably designed simply to afford Sugar credit for the work it has done - if you're not going to contribute code or cash back to Sugar, why not at least contribute credit?), it is not the business of open source licenses to try to guess at the intentions of the software's users.

According to the Open Source Definition:

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

This, to me, is the bedrock of open source. It is, in Brian Behlendorf's terms, "the right to fork." Does Sugar's license enable this right to fork? Absolutely. Is it similarly required to ensure that the modified code can make money from that software? Absolutely not. That is beyond the license. So, do I think Sugar's license is open source? You bet.

Neither the FSF nor the OSI nor anyone else should be in the business of trying to contemplate every bad intention and hedging against it. I believe OSI's open source definition shows the right way: focus on maximizing freedom, not on finding every possible way to guarantee it. A license will fail at that endeavor.

The FSF should not waste time on supposed bad intentions, but should instead invest in promoting the good ones. I thought the original GPL did an excellent job of this. It needs to stop over-engineering fixes to something that isn't fundamentally broken.

Posted by Matt Asay on July 28, 2006 08:59 AM

RATE THIS ARTICLE: