On 12/04/2012 09:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:38:38AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I realize the anti-lock down provision was presented by the FSF to the
> Linux developers as non-negotiable. However, I've since, many years
> later, learned that FSF leadership was never even communicated the
> position of the Linux developers adequately by FSF's representatives at
> the time. Last year, RMS specifically asked me to apologize on his
> behalf to every single Linux developer to tell them that he wished he'd
> talked with you directly about your concerns at the time, rather than
> going through legal counsel. I think I've so-issued that apology to
> you, Ted, when I saw you in person at some point, but if I didn't, I do
> so now. :)
I don't recall hearing this, but I certainly accept the apology ---
although I'm still not clear what RMS would have concessions (if any)
he would have been willing to make if (as you say) negotiations had
happened "has equals".
My own recollection (bearing in mind this was 6 years ago and the
unreliability of human memory, etc.) was that Diane Peters and,
separately, James Bottomley (specifically on that conference call that
Bradley referenced) proposed making the anti-lockdown requirement
(this was before the 'User Products' approach was taken) opt-in. I am
certain that RMS knew about the proposal to make the anti-lockdown
requirement opt-in or opt-out (it was the obvious 'compromise'
solution at the time). I'm not sure that contradicts anything Bradley
is saying, but I just want the historical record to be clear.
The idea of making anti-lockdown opt-in (or perpetual opt-out) was a
response to the argument that the FSF was making at the time, which is
that GPLv3's "additional permissions" mechanism provided the solution
for any licensor who objected to anti-lockdown. The counter-objection
was that this would not address the case where the licensor wished to
ensure that no downstream licensee could re-impose the anti-lockdown
requirement on *their* distributees.
Linus Torvalds may have said something publicly about this during that
time period as well (that is, about use of 'additional permissions'
being unsatisfactory for those who might otherwise be able to live
with GPLv3 but objected to the anti-lockdown requirement). I seem to
remember that, but again it was several years ago.
One reason I remember this (in general) was that, on my own
initiative, and probably following that conference call Bradley
referenced, I proceeded one evening to draft what I called (IIRC) "The
Linux Kernel License", a proof of concept which was something like the
existing draft of GPLv3 except the initial licensor would have to opt
in to the anti-lockdown provisions, or could opt out of them (I can't