Article: Will GPLv3 energize Free Software, or marginalize the FSF?
Feb 2, 2007 — by LinuxDevices Staff — from the LinuxDevices Archive — viewsForeword: As written, GPLv3 threatens to fork GNU projects and marginalize the Free Software Foundation, writes Linux observer Bill Weinberg in this well-written essay. Drawing on long experience evangelizing open source licensing to business users, Weinberg suggests that the FSF's GPLv3 high road could be a lonesome one.
by Bill Weinberg
digg this story |
A year has passed since the publication of the first draft of version 3 of the GNU General Public License. In that long and contentious year, what began as an incremental revision to a fifteen year old license has become a highly charged debate, a purported battle for the soul of Free and Open Source Software.
The revision and commentary process, ornately constructed by the Free Software Foundation, divided contributors (and critics) outside the FSF into four committees: Community Voices, Corporate Interests, Large End-Users, and Individual Contributors. In response to (or perhaps in spite of) input from these diverse interests, GPLv3 has evolved into its likely final form and is slated for final release on or about the Ides of March, 2007. The net result of this community process and its reception by Richard Stallman and the FSF is a license that makes the Free Software phalanx quite happy with its philosophical bent but leaves commercial interests in a state of bewildered frustration.
Embedded deployment of Linux is, if anything, an exercise in pragmatism. In discussions of licensing, as with technology, it is surely best to take a pragmatic approach to GPLv3: that is to say, don't take sides. It is nonetheless very important to understand the divergent positions of the primary camps, positions expressed in language and tone as different as Farsi and Fortran.
The Free Software contingent does not hesitate to remind us that its foremost concern is Freedom. Freedom as expressed in the four tenets of Free Software, and realized through its licenses, practices and software actually developed under the GNU Project umbrella (binutils, gcc, glibc, etc.). For RMS and practitioners of Free Software, the key changes in GPLv3 are designed to protect and expand users' and developers' freedoms. DRM provisions would ensure that end users are not deprived of their GPL rights to examine, rebuild and redeploy. New patent provisions would liberate developers from the shackles of software patents on code derived from or co-mingled with GPL code, and explicit statement of linking as derivation would reinforce what has been the community position for several years.
The commercial contingent does not speak with one mind with regard to Free Software or GPLv3. Notable objections to GPLv3 DRM provisions come from voices as diverse as device manufacturers, service providers, carriers and Linus Torvalds himself: GPLv3 anti-DRM provisions appear to prohibit the (re)distribution of GPLv3 as part of signed images, limiting trusted use of GPL code. GPLv3 anti-patent provisions disturb both small technology companies wishing to protect fledgling innovations as well as Fortune 1000 companies with behemoth patent portfolios. And while the clarification of works derived from GPLv3 code is surely a welcome fix to fuzzy language in GPLv2, the position taken in GPLv3 seems to fly in the face of real-world copyright law.
My experience as an embedded Linux “evangelist” set me awash in turbulent cross-currents. In my tenure at MontaVista and again at OSDL my “mission” centered on broadening and deepening adoption of Linux and OSS. From 1999 to 2003, this meant extolling the cost benefits, flexibility, performance, robustness, and yes Freedom realized from developing with and deploying the broadest possible range of embedded systems with Linux and OSS. Deploying Linux instead of legacy RTOSes and proprietary embedded UNIXes and a range of other legacy platforms. Deploying in the face of endless FUD and mischaracterization and calumny and ignorance and indifference. Deploying often not because of the attributes of this disruptive technology but in spite of them.
By 2004, the market-making strides of a handful of companies and voices like those on LinuxDevices had achieved a truly amazing feat. In just five years, embedded Linux market share went from a cipher to a dominant mainstream position. VDC data showed Linux garnering 25% of 32 and 64-bit designs in 2004 and climbing even higher in 2005; the market-leading RTOS couldn't even boast half that number of designs, and was followed by Redmond's various attempts to break into embedded. After that, the rest of the market's shares descended into noise.
At OSDL (now the Linux Foundation), we used to perform “gap analysis” to compare Linux to legacy and to find where Linux was wanting, feature and function-wise and to capture barriers to adoption. The elephant in the room, the unmentionable and greatestl barrier always ended up being, well, licensing. Certainly the multiplicity of OSI-recognized licenses got the lawyers going, but for sheer legal consternation, no, constipation, nothing ever beat the GNU General Public License. Even back at MontaVista I spent more time than I care to recall presenting, writing, soothing , cajoling and otherwise convincing OEMs that inclusion of GPL (v2) software in their products would not end civilization as they knew it. That it would not gift their closely-held intellectual property to the first hacker or cracker that came along, let alone to their competitors.
I actually had the audacity to describe this situation to the Free Software Foundation. Their response (circa 2003) crystallized the whole question for me. “This not a popularity contest,” opined the FSF director at the time, “This is about Freedom”.
So does Freedom stand in opposition to Adoption? I had always counted Freedom, especially GPL-mandated freedoms among the key drivers for Linux adoption. Freedom of access to source code. Freedom from royalties. Freedom to use and to re-use. But the priests in the temple of software freedom seemed to be telling me otherwise. They went so far as to suggest that perhaps “Linus had chosen the wrong license” and that “Linux would have been better served by BSD”.
Verily.
I won't debate the definition nor the limits of freedom. I won't remind you that Thomas Paine (the Liberty or Death guy) died in a French prison (oops — just did). But I will point out that ideologically pure interpretation of freedom in a shrinkingly small community (or a prison cell) constitutes a Pyrrhic victory for Free Software (and not my idea of a good time or good business).
GPLv3 as it stands today continues the FSF vision of freedom over popularity. Vindicating to some, deeply disturbing to others. The strictures embodied in GPLv3, when and if that new version propagates through the projects and packages of Free and Open Source software, will again make OEMs and others think twice about deployment, but this time business interests are unlikely to engage in the exhaustive advocacy of my, ah, generation. They won't need to. The Linux kernel will remain GPLv2. Some amount of user space software, especially GNU projectware, will move to GPLv3 with no great impact on broader adoption except that that code will get left out of commercial deployments (e.g., on consumer products and phones) to sidestep GPLv3. If the same strictures impact LGPLv3 in its final form, then key libraries like glibc will fork along license lines or already-waiting substitutes will be inserted in their places.
Adoption will trump a narrow view of Freedom. The FSF role will shrink to marginal proportions, and GPLv3 will become, sadly, just another license.
About the author: Bill Weinberg brings over 20 years of open and embedded systems experience to Linux Pundit, his consultancy as an Independent Industry Analyst. Previously, he was the Senior Technology Analyst at Open Source Development Labs, where he acted as the “voice of OSDL” and also ran and promoted OSDL initiatives for meeting developer and end-user requirements for Carrier-Grade and Mobile Linux. Before OSDL, Weinberg was a founder at MontaVista Software, and helped established Linux as a favored platform for next-generation intelligent devices. He is known for his writing and speaking on topics that include Linux business and technology, consumer electronics and embedded computing. He pens columns for Linux User and Embedded Computing, and is a frequent contributor to LinuxWorld, Linux Journal, Electronic Engineering Times, and other international periodicals. Weinberg is also a featured speaker and panelist at conferences like Linux World, Embedded Systems Conference, Real-time Embedded Computing Conference, and other events.
This article was originally published on LinuxDevices.com and has been donated to the open source community by QuinStreet Inc. Please visit LinuxToday.com for up-to-date news and articles about Linux and open source.