
Why does Linux still use the GPLv2? - rahuldottech
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1774/why-does-linux-still-use-the-gplv2
======
kelnos
The accepted answer is bizarre. It starts out with the correct answer --
Tivoization -- devotes a single word to it, and then goes on a multi-paragraph
rant about Google. It has nothing to do with Google; the commenter there has a
very exaggerated opinion of the influence Google wields over Linux kernel
development.

Might as well go straight to the source, Torvalds himself:
[https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289](https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289)

Edit: It's also a good point to make (as noted below), that it would be nearly
impossible to change Linux's license at this point, since all of the many
thousands(?) of contributors would have to be tracked down and agree to the
change. Although, since the GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible licenses, it's
presumably possible to license the kernel as a whole as GPLv3, with new
contributions GPLv3-licensed, without touching the licensing of the existing
code. That would likely be a nightmare to manage, and it would get really
tricky to point to a particular piece of (old but recently changed) code and
say "what license is this bit under?"

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
It has nothing to do with Tivoization. The kernel is a collective work without
copyright assignment to a central authority. It would be too much work to
contact everyone with a claim to copyright (including estates of deceased
coders) to get their blessing for a relicense. Conversely, everything under
the aegis of FSF transitioned to GPL3 because they "own" the code via
assignment.

~~~
kelnos
It's both. Torvalds initially fixed the licensing information as "GPLv2 only"
due to uncertainly; he simply wasn't comfortable agreeing to license his work
under some unknown future license. While GPLv3 was being drafted, he publicly
came out against the anti-Tivoization provisions.

So I guess it's correct to say it's still GPLv2 because it's always been that
way, and getting agreement from all contributors to change it (if that was
even desirable) would be prohibitively difficult. But it seems like the
question was actually trying to get at why Torvalds (et al.) don't like GPLv3.

------
jake-low
Somewhat off-topic, but this is a great example of a problem with
StackOverflow/StackExchange that a lot of folks pointed out in a thread
yesterday [0]: the accepted answer is terrible but is shown at the top, and a
much better answer (with clear community consensus, given the vote counts) is
below it. Why not show the best answer first?

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20859332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20859332)

~~~
compiler-guy
One possible reason is that, for technical questions at least, only the
original poster can tell if a particular answer solved their problem.

The user can ask, "How do I do X?" and the the community may settle on, "don't
do X", or, "Why would anyone ever want to do X?", but those don't answer the
question. Maybe the user has a good reason, maybe not, but they aren't the
answer.

Like all ranking systems, each method has its own advantages and
disadvantages.

~~~
jimhefferon
But surely the mods can change this?

~~~
compiler-guy
I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to by "this".

If you mean the mods could change the ranking system, of course they can. But
that would just trade one set of problems for another.

If you mean that they could change the "wrong" answers to more correct ones,
then yes, they could. But that kind of defeats the purpose of community
voting. And it is much more work for them.

How would they decide that one answer is better than another? If their own
knowledge, then that is going to feel very arbitrary in many cases.

~~~
jimhefferon
I've had responses on SE modified, sometimes significantly.

------
CJefferson
One practical reason, at this point it's impossible to upgrade.

The GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, and there are major contributors who are
either impossible to find, or sadly past away. This ignores those who just
wouldn't want GPL v3. It would be impossible to untangle these people's code
from the rest of the kernel at this point, even if you wanted to rewrite it.

~~~
caseysoftware
Almost 10 years ago, I went through the effort of relicensing something from
GPL back to BSD as it was originally licensed. I documented some of it here:
[https://web2project.net/2011/01/web2project-license-
change/](https://web2project.net/2011/01/web2project-license-change/)

------
jraph
Interesting video of Linus Torvalds' stance on the GPLv3:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU)

(edit: this is actually cited in a comment on the linked page, but I'm leaving
the link here so HNer who won't visit Stack Exchange may find it)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
At this point, if they go the trouble to relicense Linux, it might be better
to go with BSD or Apache over GPL. Linux already supports closed source
drivers (see NVidia). In addition, most of the companies that contribute to
Linux, do it because they see the benefits of features being upstream, not
because they are forced to.

~~~
favorited
Linus has said he still prefers GPLv2 for his software over the BSDs, etc (at
least as of a few years ago). He doesn't care about Tivoization, because he's
not concerned about hardware. But he said if you use Linux and enhance it for
your product, he wants the opportunity to upstream your enhancements.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> But he said if you use Linux and enhance it for your product, he wants the
> opportunity to upstream your enhancements

The major enhancements I see are hardware vendors optimizing Linux for their
hardware, or cloud vendors optimizing to make it run better on their cloud. In
both of these situations, Linux is the complement to their product (either
hardware or cloud hosting), and thus it is in their best interest to upstream
their enhancements, regardless of the license. See Joel Spolsky's classic
column: [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-
letter-v/](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/)

~~~
singron
> hardware vendors optimizing Linux for their hardware

This makes sense for component vendors that want their customers to use the
hardware with their customer's existing OS (Linux).

If it's a hardware vendor that also controls the software (e.g. mobile phones,
appliances), then this doesn't apply. Keeping modifications to themselves can
serve maintaining competitive advantage, reducing liability, or simply
reducing costs of publishing code (either getting it merged upstream or
mirroring a fork).

------
oehtXRwMkIs
Although it's accepted at this point that it's impossible to relicense Linux,
hypothetically speaking, what would be the ramifications of a GPLv3 Linux? Is
it just in cases like the TiVo?

~~~
simcop2387
There's also a lot of new patent language in there too, the license gets
revoked if you sue someone over patents in the covered work.
[https://fsfe.org/campaigns/gplv3/patents-and-
gplv3.en.html](https://fsfe.org/campaigns/gplv3/patents-and-gplv3.en.html)

------
jasoneckert
The best answer could be a simple approximation: GPLv2 has less restrictions,
and this makes it more appropriate for use with Linux given its usage and
development roadmap.

------
jjtheblunt
Was the question meant to imply "as opposed to MIT or Apache"?

