Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for on HackerTube: recommended by 2 Hacker News commenters across 2 separate months, 2015–2025.
interview · evergreen
A short TFiR clip of Linus Torvalds explaining why he thinks GPLv3 violates what GPLv2 stood for. He describes why he chose GPLv2 for kernel development and his view of the FSF's approach.
Cited again and again in GPL licensing debates as the primary source for Linus's objections to GPLv3.
“Here is an excellent video of Linus talking about why he specifically chose the GPLv2”
20 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
Well, I don't think I agree with him and would licence GPL code with the "or later" clause, but he has a very reasonable and convincing argument against it. See this video of him explaining his take on GPLv3 and the "or later" clause at Deb Conf if you are interested: ▶ this video
in “60x speed-up of Linux “perf”” · View on HN
Here is an excellent video of Linus talking about why he specifically chose the GPLv2 and how he felt betrayed when the FSF released GPLv3: ▶ this video
in “Antique BeOS Content by Scot Hacker (2011)” · View on HN
Keep in mind that Linux doesn’t use the GPL3 and stuck with the GPL2 since the maintainers and Linus Torvalds thought that it was overly restrictive [1]. So at some point the license friction becomes too large to be practical for organizations to use or contribute to. [1] ▶ this video
in “Ghostty is now non-profit” · View on HN
It's not that simple. In the email you have linked to, he does not support tivoization. He simply says that he finds the term offensive (which is really funny coming from him). Torvalds has also publicly stated that he doesn't think that tivoization benefits users, but it's not his battle to fight. More info on that topic can be found in the linked YT (linked at the precise time he is answering the question about tivoization, but the whole video is about GPL v2 vs GPL v3). YT video: ▶ this video
in “Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options” · View on HN
It is also GPL 2 - not "GPL 2 or later" so it can't be relicensed to a future version that has additional or different terms. Linus on GPL 3: Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for ▶ this video
in “Software vendors dump open source, go for the cash grab” · View on HN
Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration. Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project. So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever. This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL. This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code. What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part. [link] for an article and ▶ this video for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general. The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this.
in “SF Conservancy now accepting copyright assignment for any GPL software” · View on HN
I like Linus's response for GPL v3. [0] GPL v2 was good. Version 3 is a little over. In practice enterprises avoid using everything licensed under GPL v3 (e.g. Apple freezing Mac OS's Bash veraion), that blocks innovation cause good software usually backed by large amount of budget, especially those with GUI, like Windows, Android, Microsoft Office, Chrome etc. [0]: ▶ this video
in “Ask HN: Do you believe in GNU's Free Software?” · View on HN
This echoes of the kind of v3 fuckery Linus Torvalds complained about in his GPLv3 objection recorded at DebConf '14. [0] I'm a long-time Free/Libre software user and advocate, but "if the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term." strikes me as a very strange thing for the license to include. The copyright holder clearly has the authority to use whatever licensing terms they wish. If they added restrictions, this clause is in direct conflict with their intentions. Of course the court sided with the plaintiff. I don't understand what the FSF was trying to do here, it seems obviously underhanded like Torvalds touches upon in[0]. [0] ▶ this video
in “User beware: Modified AGPLv3 removes freedoms, adds legal headaches” · View on HN
There has been relatively high levels of support for normal / standard GPLv2 enforcement. That said, the FSF and Conservancy like to pick more edge cases and go to absolute war on them. That doesn't generate as much support it is true and a lot of parts of the GPLv3 push also rubbed folks the wrong way. "Linus says says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for" ▶ this video is but one of many many examples here.
in ““Tivoization” and Your Right to Install Under Copyleft” · View on HN
You can watch a few conference talks where folks really go to town on Linus for his bad behavior. On GPLv3 lots of calls for Linus to stop supporting GPLv2 "How do we get you to stop..." ▶ this video And the list goes on and on. That said, his decisions seem to have worked out amazingly well. At some point I can imagine getting tired at having to repeatedly defend your views.
in ““Please don't waste maintainers' time on your KPI grabbing patches”” · View on HN
I think this is true, with the MIT license being the most popular. From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way. [1] ▶ this video [2] [link]
in “CentOS Linux is ending because Red Hat refused to invest in it” · View on HN
> it was a resounding no according to Linus' very public rant at a Debconf a few years back This one? ▶ this video
in “We Love GPLv3, but Are Switching License to Apache 2.0” · View on HN
It is good if there are more decisions of the highest court. Legal uncertainty is harmful for open source. And as long as there are points in the GPL without leading decisions, this legal uncertainty will continue and open the door for trolls to blackmail open source users with out-of-court settlements in order to enrich themselves. Actually it would be so simple: I give you source code, you give me changes back, we're even. [...] If you make hardware that locks down software, it's your decision as a hardware maker; it has no impact on my decision as a software maker to give you the software. [...] To me the important part was always: I give you software, you can do whatever you want with it; if you make improvements, you have to give them back. (source: ▶ this video ).
in “Software Freedom Conservancy: New Strategy for GPL Enforcement” · View on HN
>But that promise depends on their definition of "in the same spirit," which is nebulous. Yes, very famously Linus Torvalds felt that GPLv3 was not in the same spirit as GPLv2. He described it as "a violation of everything version 2 stood for". ▶ this video
in “The Linux Foundation: Not a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness” · View on HN
Linux is not GPLv3 for a reason[1]. Not to mention it's only a kernel, not an entire OS. Basing your OS on a Linux kernel doesn't expose your other code to the GPL. Writing apps to run on a Linux system doesn't expose your code to the GPL. The Minoca OS folks are asking for the community to contribute code to their OS that's licensed under GPLv3. GPLv3 supporters are necessarily a subset of open source supporters. I contend that the subset is small enough that a Minoca OS licensed under GPLv3 will continue to experience a lack of widespread circulation. 1 - ▶ this video
in “Minoca OS: A new open source operating system” · View on HN
> > Torvalds doesn't believe in software freedom > Source for that? I thought I read a quote from him saying that GPL licensing the Linux kernel was the best decision he ever made. If you ever hear his explanation of why he used the GPL (which boils down to "I give you code, you give me code back, we're even"[1]) skips over the software freedom aspect. Not to mention that he's one of the advocates of the open source movement which doesn't have any views on software freedom. I can't give you an explicit quote where he said "I don't care about software freedom", but it becomes quite clear if you look at his actions (particularly toward the GPLv3, where he clearly differentiates his views from the FSF's views[1] -- and he carefully avoids using the term "freedom"). There is a quote where he claims that vendor lock-in isn't morally bad[2], which is the best I could find after 10 minutes of searching: > The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it is ok to control peoples hardware. [1]: ▶ this video [2]: [link]
in “Head of Oracle Linux Moves to Microsoft” · View on HN
Well, have a crack at it, then. Here is Torvalds talking about how he sees the point of the earlier GPL being subverted by v3, and that he thinks that the FSF lied to people about it. In his opinion, it should have been named a different license. He goes into detail about how it's not the license he hates, but how the FSF behaved around it. ▶ this video > since they wrote both the GPL itself and the four freedoms Also, having been part of organisations that have operated against their own philosophical principles and mission statements, I don't accept that the FSF is immune to changing their angle on things. And having hung around plenty of radical progressives growing up, I've seen some handy re-rationalisations of earlier positions. Overall, I'm on the side of the FSF. But fucked if I'm going to be part of this thing that progressives do, which is piss all over their allies (in this case, ubuntu) just because their opinion is slightly different to one's own. If someone's going to raise the "nuh-uh, subversion of license = evil", then fuck it, here is a video of someone at the heart of the whole licensing debate literally saying that the FSF behaved immorally about licenses too.
in “Canonical, Ubuntu, and Why I Seem so Upset About Them All the Time” · View on HN
▶ this video - he telegraphed GPLv3 many, many years in advance - just because it wasn't published until 2007 doesn't mean there wasn't talk about it for a long time before then.
in “GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux” · View on HN
I am sorry that I have to say this, but large parts of the GNU/Linux community are just irrational idealists hard to work with. Read the GPLv3, it's a great political document, and somewhere in there there also is a software license, hidden between the lines. Linus always said: He cares about the code back and otherwise not what vendors do with it. He is not in any sense one of those GNU-people about Software Freedom everywhere and for all. When the Free Software Foundation (FSF) created the GPLv3, indeed during the process, Linus already spoke out against it and said he would never ever use it[1]. He cited reasonable use-cases for which vendors have no other way than to not to give open access to devices, in part for example commercial license agreements. The GPLv3 - from the perspective of the FSF - fixes some vital flaws in GPLv2, from Linus' perspective however is just too strict, forbids use-cases Linux has been used before previously and is extremely anti-business and would hurt the Linux project. Whether this step of the Linux foundation is right or not, can't say for sure, but I totally understand it. A political anti-business pro-freedom-everywhere radical who already is involved in suing some of the companies she is supposed to work with on that said board? Sounds like a headache you would want to avoid at all costs. [1] ▶ this video
in “Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation” · View on HN
Linus is very anti-GPL3 Quote: "In a very real sense, the GPLv3 asks people to do things that I personally would refuse to do. I put Linux on my kids computers, and I limit their ability to upgrade it. Do I have that legal right (I sure do, I'm their legal guardian), but the point is that this is not about "legality", this is about "morality". The GPLv3 doesn't match what I think is morally where I want to be. I think it is ok to control peoples hardware. I do it myself." For something quite recent: ▶ this video
in “Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+” · View on HN