Linux experts deny the new version GPL split open source

The latest version of the general public authorization (GPL) proposal is annoying, said the kernel program designer of Linux, which has more than 20 users.

GPL is an authorization method followed by many open source code plans. However, according to the latest opinion survey report, 28 of the 29 core program designers surveyed believe that the third version of GPL (GPLv3) is better than the current second version (GPLv2) bad.

Linux program designer and SteelEye employee James Bottomley presided over the Linux core mailing list for online voting, so that Members can score GPLv3 by dividing 3 to 3 as the benchmark.

The results show that the highest rating is only 0 points in the neutral position, and the average score is negative 2. This public opinion survey was initiated by Linux leader Linus Torvalds, who personally opposed GPLv3.

FSF proposed a GPLv3 update scheme to make GPL more compliant with the times. However, the new version of authorization has changed the terms of patent and Digital Property Rights Management (DRM), and it has encountered some rebound. Some people said that the elites firmly opposed GPLv3, which may be declared obsolete if it has not yet taken effect.

"I have to think that GPLv3's position as a general authorization is almost doomed," said Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata ."

There are countless open-source projects managed by GPL, including MySQL Databases and Samba file server software. But the most successful and influential part is the Linux core-the core of this open-source operating system, which contains many other components.

According to the latest opinion survey, Torvalds opposed GPLv3 not only in his personal opinion, but also by other Linux elites.

On the 22nd, ten Linux programmers involved in this Opinion Survey jointly issued a statement against the current GPLv3 draft.

This article titled "risks and problems of GPLv3" predicts that the new letter of authorization may force Linux dealers to split their software plans into versions authorized by GPLv2 and GPLv3, this has led to a split of open-source fields ".

The statement said: "Once split, it may cause huge joint damage to our entire ecosystem, endangering the utility and survival of open source. Therefore, we begged FSF to re-view the consequences of one-stop behavior. It's not too late to give up the current GPLv3 version ."

FSF lawyer Eben Moglen did not respond immediately.

Torvalds severely attacked the GPLv3 draft, mainly because he believed that the GPLv3 draft license had gone beyond the scope of software. The controversy focuses on DRM, a set of mechanisms that control how media such as software or video can be used and shared.

Torvalds pointed out that the new version of authorization attempts to instruct how the hardware installed with GPLv3 should handle DRM, but it is not enough to win the world.

He also criticized FSF's "extreme policy" and called for replacement with a pragmatic approach.

GPLv3's critics include Hewlett-Packard and the open-source development lab (OSDL ). HP is opposed to GPLv3 patent terms, and OSDL wants to distinguish how GPLv2 and GPLv3 coexist.

Linux programmers criticized the draft GPLv3 through the "risks and problems of GPLv3" statement. The conclusion is that GPLv2 should be used as the basis for Linux core authorization.

They jointly stated: "according to our group of people who control core sub-systems, we believe that any GPLv3 version produced by this drafting process is unacceptable, let alone transfer the latest Linux core to GPLv3 authorization."

Below are their criticisms of the specific changes in the GPLv3 draft:

DRM: "We believe in the free spirit of Linux program design, so we will never accept any authorization containing restrictions on terminal use ."

Patent: "We believe this clause is unacceptable because it may interest companies in their willingness to assist us in innovation, but their contributions are indispensable ."

In the future, programmers may add additional restrictions in GPL: "The additional restriction bar attached to the GPLv3 draft will be a nightmare for our (Linux) distributors to try to identify legal issues, therefore, compared with GPLv2's non-additional restrictions, it is obviously a great step backward and unacceptable.