Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
July 06, 2007
Linux official lines up with Microsoft against GPLv3
'Too many owners of Linux' to change basis of free software license
By Paul Krill
The new GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3 is not a fit for Linux because switching would require permission from the kernel's thousands of de-facto owners, a maintainer of the SCSI portion of the kernel said on Thursday.
Advert
At the same time Microsoft released a statement that the company has no obligations under GPLv3.
The GPLv2 license has been used with Linux, but GPLv3, released by the Free Software Foundation on 29 June, presents problems, according to James Bottomley, gatekeeper of the Linux Kernel SCSI Maintainership, which governs disk storage access in the kernel.
The Linux kernel is not owned by any one person; it is owned by all the people who submit patches to it, Bottomley said. This means the kernel is now owned by anywhere from 3,500 to 10,000 people, he said.
"In order to change the kernel, we'd have to get everybody who owns the kernel to sign off on the re-licensing," said Bottomley, who also is CTO of SteelEye Technology and a member of the Linux Foundation board of directors. This would be required under copyright law, he said.
This presents obvious practical problems should the keepers of the kernel decide they want to move to GPL v3. "We'd have to find all of the owners, first of all," Bottomley said.
The lack of a compelling advantage to GPLv3 "means we're not going to bother," Bottomley said.
A plebiscite could be announced to decide the issue, but a code contributor still could object to any switch, said Bottomley. "The choice at that point would be to rewrite their code or abandon the process," he said.
The GPLv2 and v3 licenses are incompatible, he said. The Linux kernel will stick with GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, Bottomley said.
Previously, Linux kernel developer Linus Torvalds has objected to GPLv3 because of concerns that digital rights management stipulations in the new license would be burdensome.
The Free Software Foundation did not provide a response to Bottomley's claims on 5 July. The founder and president of the foundation, Richard Stallman, has advocated migrations to the new GPLv3 license for free software, emphasizing improvements in such areas as digital rights management and patent protection.
Jump to page : [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
« prev article | more development news | next article »
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'Linux official lines up with Microsoft against GPLv3 - Software Development - ComputerworldUK' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert












































Comments received
Lefty said on Saturday, 07 July 2007
This is a totally terrible article. For starts, there's no such thing as a "Linux official". James is a well-known core kernel maintainer, and all he's stating is the consensus view of the core kernel developers, and it's been stated before. Linking this with Microsoft's opinion that they're not bound by GPLv3 is inane.
Grey said on Saturday, 07 July 2007
The headline is misleading.
Chuck said on Saturday, 07 July 2007
No such thing as a Linux offical - and that is the point wiht why the GPLv3 won't work. Good article I thought