What is Digg?39 Comments
- voisine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, I'm sure it backwards compatible, i.e. GPL2 code can be licensed under GPL3 but not the other way round.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ince I don't think he plans to integrate spyware anytime soon, I don't see this as a problem.
morganix@home:~$ startx
Hungy? Why not stop at Mcdonalds for a tastey treat?
morganix@home:~$ startx
Need to refinance? Visit www.refinance.com
morganix@home:~$ startx
segmentation fault (coredump) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is not a big suprise. In fact I expect that MANY exsisting GPL projects will not try to change their license because its too much trouble to get permission from EVERY single person that contributed code to that project.
GPL3 will likely be used by new projects first, or projects that strictly have a small number of known developers that can all agree to the license change. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3aw fsck.
cat last_post | sed 's/Linux/Linus/' > last_post - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So no GPL3 because of the signing requirements? What's his thoughts on the DRM issue?
- regeya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1++digg just because it's Linus flying off the handle for no reason. like usual.
- mattclare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gyrfalcon sorry to disturb you.
My understanding is that there was DRM bulit into Simbian and that you can't do anything useful with iTunes music on the ROKR. I don't own a ROKR, so I can only speculate. It might be suitably at the application level so that a GPL3'd Kernel would not suffer that "viral" license impact that Microsoft likes to go on about. It is not that the DRM has to be in the Kernel, it's that the DRM software has to access all the GPL3'd stuff in the system in a way that complies with the licence. This is why the LGPL was created - so that you could use a library for example but not have to suddenly opensource your whole project. That's why The Harmony project is writing a LGPL'ed clone of the Qt.
But, just as an example, Bit Torrent is a great way to distribute podcasts. All most all clients support it because implementation is easy and free and solves the bandwith problem. So why isn't it in the most popular client, iTunes? Becaues the word Bit Torrent scares the crap out of the record & movie industry and if some director in some media company heard that iTunes supported Bit Torrent all they would know is it was a bad thing, iTunes = bad.
So, if we assume that DRM can all be done on the appliation level in something like the ROKR, that it's not in the OS, there's still a problem. That same music big shot knows the letters DRM = good. If he finds out his music is about to go on the anti DRM Linux he'll stop it, he'd then know that Linux = bad. - gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no such thing as "good DRM". Your encrypted file system analogy is ludicrous and you obviously have no idea how EFS work (since they already do without the assistance of DRM).
As for grandalf and outdoor83... Open Source software is not about freedom, but only about having access to the source code of the software. The GPL is about freedom. If you really want to debate this be my guest. - gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If Linux went GPL3 it could not be used on a single handheld device (phone/MP3 player/plam/etc) that played stuff from Audible.com, iTunes, or any on-line media store." -- mattclare
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. Why do you claim having an GPLv3 kernel would prevent iTunes from being put on a linux based handheld device? Not having DRM built into the Symbian OS didn't seem to prevent Motorola and Apple from putting iTunes on the ROKR. - mattclare, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not pro-DRM, but it's a very good thing that Linus is not keen on GPL 3.
If Linux went GPL3 it could not be used on a single handheld device (phone/MP3 player/plam/etc) that played stuff from Audible.com, iTunes, or any on-line media store. That whole market would become Windows Mobile or Simbian. Sure everyone should use OGG, but giving that whole market over to those two is not a good thing for Linux.
I'm not entirely sure how Linux got all that support and became so well developed over BSD, but I think that if Linux where under the BSD license or the Mozilla license you'd see even more adoption by commercial users.
Maybe it's because I run Darwin (OS X) and Linux (Gentoo and RedHat/Fedora) exclusively (no windows), MAYBE, it was that a GPL kernel was more compatible with everything that makes the Linux OS - but that hasn't stopped BSD from having the same tools. I just wish Linux had a less restrictive license. If Linux had a more commercial friendly license OSX might have been built on Linux instead of the BSD licensed Darwin, but I just think the best way to keep Linux free by all definitions is to keep people who have money already interested in it.
Or maybe Linux would be taken advantage of like BSD was by Apple's closed source GUI and corporate greed. Where you stand depends on where you sit on this one, but I'm glad Linus came out against GPL 3. - kilian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> cat last_post | sed 's/Linux/Linus/' > last_post
Ttt... Useless use of cat.
sed -i 's/Linux/Linus/' last_post
:) - xtracto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@morganix (0): "Just for the record, remember this is the Linux Kernel, and NOT LINUX."
So, for you what does "Linux" exactly stand for?, Linux is exactly that the Kernel of the operating system all the other things you see on your distro are GNU tools and other third party software like X Window, bash and gnome or KDE.
Linux is just a kernel... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just for the record, remember this is the Linux Kernel, and NOT LINUX. You might point out the DRM issue, but since he oversees all the work done on the kernal, there isn't a need for a rule on it. Not that you would integrate DRM into a system kernal anyway. The current GPL does what it has needed to do all these years, and it will continue to. GPL 3 might be nice to use for some newer linux applications though. This really doesn't matter.....
- dukeinlondon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder how he is going to accomodate everyone. I am sure some developper will want to change the license of the bits they have copyright on. He'll have to talk about it whether he wants it or not.
The switch is not automatic but the linux development team is rather large so unanimous aggreement with Linus is unlikely - bleaked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0go LGPL
- citrusfizz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0aw fsck.
cat last_post | sed 's/Linux/Linus/' > last_post
spoken like a true geek... man i love linux - TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Linus could always use an older version. Or make his own license.
- lunarship, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As I recall the standard GPL V2 states that the software may be used under GPL v2 "or any later version at your [the user's] discretion".
So - unless Linus has rewritten the GPL - all previous versions of Linux are already licensed under GPL v3, and all the developers that have contributed code are happy with that. - spafbnerf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> No, I'm sure it backwards compatible, i.e. GPL2 code can be licensed under GPL3 but
> not the other way round.
Just to be pedantic about it, that's called forward compatibility. :) - Outdoor83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm with grandalf who said Open Source is about freedom. GPLv3 limits what you can do with your software. Richie Stallman may not like DRM and the fact that his stuff is used to promote it, but this isn't about his political agenda.
If we don't like DRM enough, we won't buy their products, and drastic changes will take place. The market and public backlash / politicians can handle DRM well enough, we don't need to tell them "You can't use GNU software because I don't like you" as they will simply fork over a couple mil to get Sun boxes or the like. Especially at the cost of the concept of "free as in freedom" software.
Bad move by the FSF. Great move by Linus. Every time I hear about one of the guy's thoughts / decisions, I like him more. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Ttt... Useless use of cat.
sed -i 's/Linux/Linus/' last_post"
Whoah. Awesome. Thank you!~ - deathguppie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The inclusion 'by choice' of someone wanting to use DRM in thier own system is not inherently bad. There are reasons why, DRM could be wanted by the `user`.
For istance I have an encrypted filesystem that holds all of my personal data. The key to that is kept on a usb memory stick, and time synced to my system. Without that usb stick you can't get in.
There is bad DRM and good DRM .. remember it's about the rights of the user. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Exactly. The GNU part will go GPL3, and Linux will stay with two, but it'll still be GNU/Linux.
- gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You're not disturbing me. Actually I screwed up on the ROKR and after checking it doesn't seem to run symbian OS, but rather Motorola OS (see: http://motocoder.com ). DRM can be applied at many different levels like you've mentioned though... That being said I don't care if Bittorrent or any other technology scares the crap out of various industries. For the most part the movie and record industries are oligopolies.
There is nothing viral about the GPL as Microsoft might want you to believe. Checkout this article on GPL and DRM relating to the linux kernel:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060120-6024.html - lunarship, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry... what I meant is that if you remove that section it doesn't alter section 9, which states that unless an explicit version number is stated you can choose any version.
- gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0GPLv3 seems like a great license so far. Linus has his opinions of course but as someone else said:
Linus-- "I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available..."
"If it was so, it would be, and if it were so, it might be, but as it isn't, it ain't."
Go read the draft of GPLv3. It doesn't require anything of the sort, with the exception of companies which use DRM, which doesn't include anyone in the Free Software community. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think the mandatory (is it actually mandatory?) publishing of public keys is cool. Really, what's the big deal. If you want your public key private, make another keypair.
...Linus is just mad at rms because he keeps calling it GNU/Linux. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0lol @ gamemaster357.
Nope, its definitely Linux. Operating Systems don't tend to say no to things. - davidleeroth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0it_is_really_annoying_to_read_the_text_that_he_wrote
- TheQwe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1dugg. The GPLv3 would lock out a lot of companies from using the Linux kernel, which is IMO a bad thing.
- davs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i do, and a lot of people who follow gnu/linux development.
- bkmbr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Linus says no to GPL, so then no more GNU/Linux, just Linux ?
- grandalf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0WHAT A RELIEF! It's nice to see that Linus has the sense to realize that the GPL3 would kill linux.
Open Source software is about freedom, and the GPL3 came in out of the blue and attempted to take away a lot of the freedom that many people and firms using Linux/OSS had come to enjoy and rely upon.
ESR and the FSF are (fortunately) marginalizing themselves. Good riddance. - endernet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1How does a post with 26 diggs and 2 comments make the front page? Because Linus speaks?
- lowbot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1>How does a post with 26 diggs and 2 comments make the front page? Because Linus speaks?
Right now the average is 40 for the last 5 listed stories. Im not sure how digg works but I assume if something gets a certain percentage of all diggs or gets enough diggs per minute and breaks a threshold (40?) then it gets sent to the front page. This may only happen at non-peak hours. - nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Who honestly cares?
- gamemaster357, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0linux not linus
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is