GPL v3
When I saw the story (The Register) appearing in the news that Linus (Torvalds, a.k.a. Mr Linux) would reject GPL v3 (LKML) (which is still a draft, this is not the final version) because he didn’t like the DRM related wording in it, apparently saying that it meant he would have to turn over his private (encryption/signing) key, I blinked a few times. Huh? How is one thing related to the other?
Unfortunately I didn’t have or take the time to find the original statement from Linus (until just now) or read up on the GPL v3 draft to see if I could read the same thing into its wording.
Fortunately I don’t seem to be the only one who’s quirking eyebrows at this statement, because here’s GrokLaw’s Pamela Jones, the open source’s favourite paralegal (so to speak):
Linus seems to think you have to turn over your private key, such as one might use to sign off on code. That’s not my understanding of the clause about DRM at all. I see no wording saying that. Of course, I’m still getting up to speed myself on the GPLv3. My current understanding of the DRM clause is just that if you can’t run a program without a private key, you have to be given the key. And no invasions of user privacy are allowed.
Thank you for confirming I wasn’t the only one who was somewhat confused by this statement. I’m sure time will come with clarifications on whether the GPL v3 draft really implied this and, if it did, whether that wording is going to be in the final version.