Editor's Note: Who's Driving That Bus? Oct 13, 2006, 22 :30 UTC (25 Talkback[s]) (16746 reads) (Other stories by Brian Proffitt)
By Brian Proffitt
Managing Editor
It's Friday the 13th, and for some of us in the Western world it's a day where we walk a little more carefully, avoiding ladders and black cats... and maybe we handle mirrors just a little more cautiously.
Of course, you're reading the work of a guy that still tosses spilled salt over his shoulder. I have a firm belief in the scientific nature of the universe, but I also have more than a little suspicion that there are things out there that we know nothing about. To think otherwise would be arrogant, no matter what you believe. Perhaps a superstitious nature is a bit quirky, but it gets me through the day.
I enjoy delving into these mysteries of the universe around us. To stimulate my lofty thought processes, I thought I'd try to tackle another mystery of the universe: why the mainstream media is so insistent in creating a crisis around the licensing debate going on in the open source community.
The most prominent example of this is the GPL 2 vs. 3 debate, which seems to have some people convinced that it's the End of Linux kernel as We Know It. I have touched on this discussion a few times before, but I guess it's time to break it down for the terminally challenged: GPL 3 is a license which people will or will not use for their software projects. And--here's the important point, kids--license participation is voluntary. Can you say that with me? Vol...un..tar...eee. I knew you could.
Condescending? Trust me, far less so than the horrible mishmash of facts, speculation, and outright distortions being peddled as journalism over at Forbes this month. In the October 28 issue, our old friend Daniel Lyons puts forth--with a straight face--the notion that Richard Stallman's promotion of the GPL 3 is akin to a suicide bomber who's ultimate task will be to destroy the Linux kernel.
You are more than free to read the article and sidebars yourself ("Toppling Linux"). I didn't link to it from the LT front page because it requires free registration and I didn't want to subject readers en masse to that kind of hurdle for such a completely wrong-headed piece. I like to link to points that run counter to the majority of the open source community, to present a balanced view of how everyone sees OSS and Linux. But this was just plain silly.
Here's a paragraph that will pretty much highlight most of the errors in Lyon's line of thought:
"Now Stallman is waging a new crusade that could end up toppling the revolution he helped create. He aims to impose new restrictions on IBM and any other tech firm that distributes software using even a single line of Linux code. They would be forbidden from using Linux software to block users from infringing on copyright and intellectual-property rights ('digital rights management'); and they would be barred from suing over alleged patent infringements related to Linux."
The article then goes on to paint a doomsday scenario about how there will be an older version and a newer version of Linux floating around, and how such a division will split and ultimately weaken the Linux operating system. Eventually Lyons does get around to mentioning that it's really a difference in licenses and not an actual fork, but even after indicating that, he acts like the effects would be the same.
The reality is that when GPL 3 is finally finished, no such thing will happen. Because choosing a license for a project is not up to anyone except the authors of that project. Despite what Lyons and some of his colleagues are trying to scare people into believing, if I have a GPL 2-licensed application no one can hold a gun to my head and make me switch to GPL 3. It doesn't work like that, and anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
Don't just believe me, let's hear it from the man himself. In a September 22, 2005 interview with ONLamp's Federico Biancuzzi, Stallman was asked this question: "What would you do if Linus chose to keep the kernel under GPL v2.0? Would you promote a fork led by someone else under GPL v3?"
Did RMS advocate the hostile takeover of That Which is Linux, thus announcing his evil nefarious plan? Hardly. I thought his response was pretty realistic: "Only the developers of Linux can decide what to do about licensing of Linux. I hope they'll decide to convert back to 'GPL version 2 or later' and subsequently upgrade to GPL version 3, but it's up to them. There's nothing in the matter for me to do."
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, despite his constant portrayal as a radical activist out to destroy the corporate world, RMS was saying the rational, sane thing nearly a year ago. Perhaps Lyons should have read this interview--but then, it would have prevented Lyons from getting his cover story this month.
Make no mistake: the existence of GPL 3 will make things more interesting for the free and open source software communities. I am not trying to sweep these issues under the rug. There have been concerns about incompatibilities between the two versions of this license. The very next question in the ONLamp piece pretty much sums it up: "Maybe you could talk about the common question that people have: a project under GPL that receives a patch under GPL 3. What happens?"
"If the project's current code permits use under 'GPL version 2 or later,' they can integrate that patch. However, the files where they have merged in the patch will have to say 'GPL version 3 or later,'" Stallman replied.
"They also have the option of not using that patch, or asking the contributor to give permission for its use under 'GPL version 2 or later,'" he added.
That's not the end of the world; it's a pain in the butt.
Patches coming into the Linux kernel, for instance, would have to be accepted under "GPL version 2 or later," or they don't get in. If an individual patch developer raised a big enough stink about it, it's possible their work would have to be forked and relicensed under something compatible with GPL 2. Not fun, but certainly not insurmountable.
Is it possible a body of developers could fork the Linux kernel to a GPL 3 version? Yes, it is possible, which relegates Lyon's article from outright fiction to very unlikely scenario.
Sure, you could fork Linux and relicense it. Heck, for that matter, I could. I call could call it Brinux--er, sorry, GNU/Brinux. But who in their right mind would use it? My mom maybe, but I don't think she likes me that much.
Let's really think this through: what if a very noteworthy group of people forked the Linux kernel and relicensed it? Even if that development team was very respected, I have a very hard time imagining such a project taking off, for two simple reasons.
First, it is very unlikely that any commercial Linux distribution would use such a fork, unless they really liked the GPL 3. To be honest, I don't know which company would, since the DRM and patent restriction clauses tend to give corporate-types the heebie jeebies.
Without direct corporate support and distribution, a GPL 3-Linux kernel/fork would have a very low install base. Because, like it or not, much of the major exposure that the Linux kernel gets now is because of its inclusion into corporate-sponsored distributions.
But even if there were an entity that just loved GPL 3, I don't think they would seriously adopt it, because it would mean cutting themselves off from something really important: the talent and ingenuity that created Linux in the first place.
That's the second thing preventing a successful kernel/license fork: one that curiously doesn't get mentioned in these abstract licensing discussions. Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, Marcelo Tosatti, and all the rest of the talented kernel developers are Linux. Sure, we all like to say that if Linus were hit by a bus tomorrow, Linux would go on, because that's the beauty of open source software. And it's absolutely true.
Here's what people tend to forget: such a scenario is worst-case. Change, including death, is a part of life, and it's good to have a system in place that prepares for changes big and small. But that doesn't mean the people in the system are willing to bring about such a drastic change.
In other words, no one would want to willingly drive that bus.
Less colorfully, no one would voluntarily cut themselves off from the technical talent that created Linux in the first place. To do so would be crazy, because the end result would be a product different from the original Linux kernel and likely not a better one.
What the media and all the other observers need to remember about the GPL debate is that it is just that: a debate. A disagreement about what is right for the direction of free software. The Linux kernel is just the poster child for how the debate will affect change. Or not.
GPLv3 controversy This new GPLv3 stuff sure is causing a lot of controversy. It seems to me that maybe the FSF is trying to accomplish too much with it. Perhaps they should trim it down a lot, and reduce their ambitions, so that v3 will achieve general acceptance. Then later, they can try to achieve more with GPLv4. Also, if they really want to release this license the way it is now, perhaps they should give it a different name, in order to differentiate it from the still-popular GPLv2 and reduce confusion.
RE: GPLv3 Controversy The controversy appears much larger than it actually is. The kernel developers don't normally speak in public but when they do, they roar. The impression has been created primarily by sensationalistic reporting that there is some huge split down the middle of free and open source software. There's not. It's just a license. Some people will use it, some people won't. Avoiding controversy was never a goal of the movement. Defending freedom always was.
You've made some errors here I can't help but think you've made them on purpose. Nobody is worried about someone forking the kernel. The fear involves the forking of other parts, the parts that go to GPLv3, including the parts for which FSF controls copyrights. Despite what you say, others believe that it is still not clear that a distributor can mix v2 and v3 code. (These include lawyers at OSDL and HP, who are participating in the GPLv3 committees.) This uncertainty about mixing v2 and v3 code is one issue that OSDL has been raising. If a distributor can't mix GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code, what are they to do when key pieces go to v3? Sure, they can stick with v2 versions, but they won't have access to future development that takes place under v3. So they'll have to do that themselves. And it's not clear they have the manpower to do that. Even if they do, others will be developing versions under v3, and they won't be compatible. Is this really so hard to understand? Another scenario: Even if v2 and v3 code can be mixed, a commercial distributor may not want to touch v3 code because it considers terms of the GPLv3 too onerous. Again, in that case that distributor can keep shipping the old v2 versions, but to develop new features the distributor would have to fork the elements of the OS that FSF has moved to GPLv3 (for example, gcc, glibc, binutils, etc.) I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Isn't this a Linux publication? Did you read the statement paper from the kernel developers? Have you talked to any of those guys? I can't help but think you're being willfuly ignorant in pretending to think my article was talking about the Linux kernel forking. Stallman's camp isn't going to fork the Linux kernel. If anything, they would probably do a build using Hurd in place of Linux. I'm sure you've seen that mentioned. You remember Hurd, right? It's the kernel they were trying to make work when Torvalds came along. For another thing: You and others keep raising the point that the change is "vo-lun-tar-ee" as if the world doesn't understand that or as if my article claimed otherwise. We all know it's voluntary. But GPLv3, as drafted today, would impose on companies that adopted it some arguably onerous terms. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads and making them use it. But what they are doing is saying, There are key parts of GNU-Linux that you need and which now are moving to GPLv3. If you want to stay with past versions under GPLv2, that's fine, but the future versions from us are going to be under GPLv3. So if you want to use those, you'll need to abide by the terms of GPLv3. Or you can just take over development of future features in all those pieces on on your own. We know that FSF is going to take key pieces of GNU-Linux and move them to GPLv3. (In case you don't know that, let me put your mind at ease -- rms told me so himself months ago.) The question is how onerous will the terms of GPLv3 be. If rms removes certain rules the commercial guys might not have a problem using GPLv3 code. If rms keep in language that makes GPLv3 too onerous for commercial distributors, this could in effect force those companies to take over development of forked versions of those pieces. I'm not making this up. I've discussed it with Linus, Bottomley, Greg K-H, OSDL's CEO, OSDL's chief legal counsel, IP counsel for HP, head of open source at HP, IP counsel at Novell, and others who are participating in the GPLv3 committees. But sure, fire away. I'm sure it's fun to call some reporter an idiot. Thanks.
You don't seem to know what "mixing code" means. Yes, the FSF plans to shift GNU tools to GPL 3. But those tools are not part of the kernel. They are outside of the kernel, used to compile it or help it interface with other applications in some way. The licensing issue with the kernel only comes up if someone introduces a patch for the inside of the kernel that has a GPL 3 (or later) license.
No one is disputing that Stallman and the FSF will be upgrading their tools' license. But I think the magnitude of the problem is overstated in your column and in your statements here. Linux distributions are composed of hundreds of separate applications, with many different licenses attached. Most are GPL 2, but there are some notable exceptions: Apache has its Apache Public License and Firefox has the Mozilla Public License. Some Linux distributors even put closed source, proprietary code in their package sets, and these prop. apps run alongside the kernel and all the other GPL 2 applications just fine (though admittedly this tends to irk purist Linux users).
The new requirements for the GPL 3 only apply to the code that is under the GPL 3 license. If gcc, to use one of your examples, were under GPL 3, then I as a developer would not be able insert code into gcc's source code that had DRM characteristics. But the license does not prevent me from running a DRM application alongside gcc in a Linux distribution (if I were nutty enough to want to). I could even use gcc as a compilation tool to compile a DRM application. Said DRM application, however, would have to be licensed as something other than GPL 3, obviously.
None of the GPL licenses prevent a user from using whatever application they wish alongside a GPL'd application. Not even GPL 3. To do so would be an contradiction to the very core notion of software freedom. Sure, at the end of the day, we would all like to have free software, but the GPL never forces anyone to run only similarly-licensed software. How could it?
The only real problem comes along, as I mentioned in my article, if someone wants to try to introduce GPL 3 code into the source code of an existing application that is licensed as GPL 2 only. And then developers are going to have to hash it out.
As for your personal attacks, if that's what gets you through the day, Dan, then have at it. If I made errors in my article, then my readers--including the people you mentioned--will point it out to me, and I will listen and learn. Until that time, it doesn't change the fact that I believe your article is incorrect and exaggerates a licensing issue into an all out disaster. The very derisive tone of your article makes quite clear the disdain you have towards Linux and free software and its participants, so playing the objective card with me is hypocrisy at its finest.
Brian Proffitt Managing Editor Linux Today/LinuxPlanet
Re: Re: You've made some errors here Sure, at the end of the day, we would all like to have free software, but the GPL never forces anyone to run only similarly-licensed software. How could it?
Re: Re: You've made some errors here Mr. Proffitt, I was not a reader of your publication until I was shown to this editorial. I find it to be very balanced - an oasis of truth in a desert of slander, deception and outright paranoia. Mr. Lyons may not like your criticism of his Stallman and GPLv3 smear campaign, but I thought it was quite accurate, and I wanted to leave this comment to let you know you've just earned at least one more reader. Best regards, Chase Venters
the point The point of all these licenses is to have something which simultaneously allows work to be open and available, yet not stolen by anyone. In the end there may be a whole family of licenses (which might make more sense anyway) and people choose which license member of the family to use, depending on their needs/desires.
Re: You've made some errors here >> LinuxKerne Hi Lyons, You have made a small mistake. Even if (or rather surely will) GCC, binutils, glibc, etc move to GPLv3. There shouldn't be any problem with a distribution involving Linux kernel (under GPLv2) and these tools (gcc,binutils....glibc)(under GPLv3) and other opensource applications(under GPLv3), because Kernel doesn't include code from these packages. Rather kernel just uses GCC and binutils to compile itself to the target processor architecture. So as long as GCC and Binutils allows its usage to compile any application under any license, Linux kernel under GPLv2 can still use GCC and Binutils. So Linux kernel(GPLv2 and NO "or later clause") AND Gcc,Binutils (GPLv3) is OK OK OK. However a OpenSource application with GPLv2 but without "or Later clause" (I DON'T think there are any, SO A NON ISSUE)using Glibc (under GPLv3) is NOT OK. HOWEVER Glibc uses LGPL. And if LGPL also has same GPLv3 related issues then it could be a problem but again as I said I DON'T think there are any other open source code out there which has removed the "or Later" clause.
GPL V3 All for GPL V3. For a lot of reasons, but primarily because it addresses DRM crapola, which quite frankly we do not need. DRM is nothing but a RIAA/MPAA cooked up scheme, to restrict digital content. It has nothing to do with the computer industry. The reason why it is being pushed is because of Microsoft, which as a side affect, would allow the production of computers that can run windows, but nothing else. I call it GPLv2 with an ANTI GREED and POWER HUNGRY clause. -gc
Nice article, thanks Brian Proffitt, nice article, and refreshing view point. It's obvious that Dan Lyons has spent far too much time listening to Linus inspired kernel developers who seem intent to push this end of the world as we know it scenario. Why they do this is fairly obvious to me, they simply are reflecting the values of the companies they work for. Or that fund their organizations. Whether or not this fear is justified I was quite honestly never able to determine by reading anything that Linus himself said on the subject, since Linus seemed to have a great deal of difficulty actually putting out a rational argument on the subject. As anyone who read his increasingly absurd Groklaw postings should have seen quite clearly. If there was any doubt that the opposition Linus has was not based on rational grounds, they vanished for me in those exchanges. What I saw during most of the key exchanges was a serious lack of vision on the part of the core kernel developers and the companies and organizations they belong to and that employ them. So I no longer will be looking for any long term thinking by core kernel guys. RMS, as usual, is simply trying to see what will stop free software long term, and mofifying the license slightly to take changes and unanticipated developments into acount. And these are, despite what the near hysterical kernel guys tones, relatively modest changes from what I can see. What's impressed me is how consistently reasonable RMS and Moglen have been during the entire process, and how absurd Linus has been. Obviously, it's upto the authors of any GPL code to decide what license to use, that's never been a question, but what did become clear during this process is just how unreliable I think Linus will be long term re actually making decisions that will guarantee the long term already implicit in the gpl 2, but explicit in 3, Functional Freedom Open Source software will guarantee its users. And that's really all the so called tivo discussion was ever about. Why Linus ever saw this in any other terms is really hard to understand if you look at the actual GPL 3 text, especially in the modified versions.
Someone made some errors here Dan Lyons: I'm not making this up. I've discussed it with Linus, Bottomley, Greg K-H, OSDL's CEO, OSDL's chief legal counsel, IP counsel for HP, head of open source at HP, IP counsel at Novell, and others who are participating in the GPLv3 committees.
It's a pity you didn't listen to them.
But sure, fire away. I'm sure it's fun to call some reporter an idiot.
I didn't say you were an idiot for fun. I said it because it's true. Your responses to this and other comments merely add more proof. And don't call yourself a reporter--it's insulting to those who really are reporters. You're a paid mouthpiece.
Thanks.
You're welcome. Now go back and play in the sandbox.
License Restrictions ... the GPL never forces anyone to run only similarly-licensed software. How could it?
Well, it could do so, quite easily, by putting those terms in the license. However, it doesn't do that. Your argument that the GPLv3 only applies to software licensed under the GPLv3 is good; the fact that many popular GNU/Linux distributions bundle together software under many different software licenses is equally valid.
However, I'm afraid (much as I hate to admit it) that Dan has a point about GPLv3. Consider the patent terms. What RMS seems to be shooting for is to forbid the publisher of any GPLv3 software to bring suit against anybody else for patent claims related to that specific GPLv3 software, on penalty of losing the right to use or publish said GPLv3 software. Those terms, reasonable as they are (IMHO), are enough right there to make many companies nervous and unhappy, especially ones with large patent portfolios like HP (IBM seems to be taking an enlightened course on software patents these days).
If the patent terms are worded badly, however, or if they're more expansive than that (some, for example, advocate that GPLv3 forbid any patent lawsuit whatsoever) then many companies will refuse to distribute any GPLv3 software, including GCC, binutils, etc. That would prompt either a GPL2 fork of commonly used GNU utilities, new ones written which are licensed under GPL2, or (worst case) a company may discontinue publishing GNU/Linux altogether.
Mind you, I still think that Dan is blowing this way out of proportion and getting 2/3 of his facts wrong, but don't discount the very real possible backlashes to what, for all that I support it, RMS is doing.
Jeff Simpson... What I saw during most of the key exchanges was a serious lack of vision on the part of the core kernel developers and the companies and organizations they belong to and that employ them. So I no longer will be looking for any long term thinking by core kernel guys.
I found the position of the kernel folks, and particularly Linus in his comments on Groklaw and elsewhere, to be logical and quite cogently presented.
Why result to ad Hominem attacks like the above?
Address their concerns rationally, not rhetorically.
Stallman In the (good?) oll days before communism in Russia, the Tsar's were frequently consulting with a dude called Rasputin about how to consolidate their power, land and the people working it. But something sure went awry as Rasputin did what he did best and steered the Royal Tsar empire into a collision course with no way back. I sure hope Stallman ain't opting for the in house FSF Rasputin award with this GPLv3 License.
I can't blame Linus for sticking to what's proven to work ok with GPLv2. The FSF should allow a test drive period with GPLv3. Making things more complicated for the coders, where the benefits of moving over ain't crystal clear is for me a no-go.
Always remind, there's tons of License widgets like BSD which realize the objected goals for commercial use and exploitation. The parkinglot lines of the GPLv2 are rather clear and obvious for anyone. Why do we need to park the same code, which fits inside a single parkingplace into a football field where every 10 yard line presents a new chapter in legal proceedings? The objective besides the DRM ramblings of the GPLv3 ain't still clear to me.
Maybe the latest kernels don't fit inside a single legal parkinglot. The solution however is obvious, any _NEW_ code which cannot live without a GPLv3 tag attached should be separated where _EXISTING_ kernel code should remain untouched. Just make sure to keep a GPLv2 core kernel tree which keeps on doing what Linux already does today.
If the FSF/Stallman is trying to lure Linus into moving _EXISTING_ kernel code into GPLv3, we enter shaky grounds.
Dan Lyons... ...has, over and over again, proven himself to be an idiot. What more needs be said, other than that reading his drivel is good for a laugh? The particular piece, Toppling Linux, is actually good for a few belly laughs.
Relicensing Linux "Is it possible a body of developers could fork the Linux kernel to a GPL 3 version? Yes, it is possible, which relegates Lyon's article from outright fiction to very unlikely scenario." --- In actual fact, it is not legal to do this without the approval of everyone who holds a copyright on the Linux kernel source. Linux is licensed under "GPL version 2" terms, not "GPL version 2 or later".
Re: Relicensing Linux >--- In actual fact, it is not legal to do this without the approval of everyone who holds a copyright on the Linux kernel source. Linux is licensed under "GPL version 2" terms, not "GPL version 2 or later".
Right. I should have mentioned this additional hurdle. It still isn't impossible... but it is even more unlikely than I originally described. And really, it's just another ray of sunshine on this particular stack of FUD. Thanks!
Brian Proffitt Managing Editor Linux Today/LinuxPlanet
Re: Re: Relicensing Linux > >--- In actual fact, it is not legal to do this without the approval of everyone who holds a copyright on the Linux kernel source. Linux is licensed under "GPL version 2" terms, not "GPL version 2 or later". >Right. I should have mentioned this additional hurdle. It still isn't impossible... but it is even more unlikely than I originally described.
Well, actually, I'm not so sure. I still don't expect it will happen, but I don't think you'd need to relicense everything to get the effect you want. As far as I know, the licenses are compatible. You could fork the kernel and make all new patches GPL 3, and maybe convince a few contributors to relicense their code. You'd end up with a mix of GPL 2 code and GPL 3 code. But it would be effectively GPL 3 after a while, because anyone wanting to Tivo-ize would have to strip out all the GPL 3 code first. Basically, beyond a certain level of new and converted code, your fork would be effectively "tainted" with version 3 to an extent that would be impractical to bypass.
This is a level headed article Brian, Thanks for your thoughts on GPLv3 and its precieved effects on the Linux kernel. Your article has cleared some of the FUD being thrown around about GPLv3 - some of it by the kernel developers themselves. I think in the long run GPLv3 if embraced by the major free software developers will help safeguard the freedom of the users of that software. So I am all for GPLv3.
Stallman's GPL is bedrock Stallman imagined and created the GPL as a relatively young man - while at the same time working on EMACS and various of the GNU tools. The big surprise, I think, is that he created something so foundational at so young an age. Usually young people create fabulous new theories such as General Relativity or the theory of chemical bonds, and it usually takes having a lot of life experience to craft something that forms so strong a bulwark that it seems to take its place alongside the components of our Bill of Rights. Stallman made whiz-bang software to be sure, but long after EMACS and other similar whiz-bangs are forgotten the GPL will not only be remembered it will still be in active use - GPL-2, GPL-3, GPL-14, GPL-nnn; whatever, it will still be there. It is a simple implementation of a structure that balances the rights and responsibilities of a lot of different people and does so quite well. Really and truly, Richard Stallman deserves our gratitude - he looked into the future and percieved correctly something that would be of crucial importance. Bravo to RMS!
Commercial distributions will not avoid GPL3 "First, it is very unlikely that any commercial Linux distribution would use such a fork, unless they really liked the GPL 3. To be honest, I don't know which company would, since the DRM and patent restriction clauses tend to give corporate-types the heebie jeebies."
As Grant Likely pointed out you can't get a forked Linux based on different licenses without the copyright holders' approval. However the quoted statement could apply to any software which is released under GPL3.
I don't think that corporate objections to GPL3 would be universal. In the case of software patents I think that the effect will be that developers will not write code using a restrictive patent (licensed under GLP2 or BSD). If they did then distributors would not distribute it because of the hassle of enforcing the patent restrictions. So, GPL3 will not affect the fact that developers and distributors currently avoid restrictive software patents anyway.
In the case of DRM I think that the few distributions whose main selling point is DRM restricted material will have to drop Open Source software and go 100% proprietary. Those distributions which only offer DRM restricted material as a minor selling point will drop DRM. Most current distributions will choose to drop DRM.
GPL2 Only for kernel not "GPLv2 or later" "Patches coming into the Linux kernel, for instance, would have to be accepted under "GPL version 2 or later," or they don't get in." Other than this mistake a good article.
Re: GPL2 Only for kernel not > "Patches coming into the Linux kernel, for instance, would have to be accepted under "GPL version 2 or later," or they don't get in." > Other than this mistake a good article.
No, it's still correct. The kernel is GPL 2 only. If anyone tried a patch licensed as GPL 3 or later, it would be incompatible. Thus, the patch would have to be either rejected or the patch author convinced to relicense it to "GPL 2 or later."
Brian Proffitt Managing Editor Linux Today/LinuxPlanet
