| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynoteEben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynotePosted Apr 25, 2005 17:40 UTC (Mon) by thomask (guest, #17985)Parent article: Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote
I can see why Moglen's worried about the community consultation. It looks as if three parties will be involved in reviewing GPL v3: the corporations, the community and RMS. Anyone else feel worried that it could get nasty? RMS is well-known for being uncompromising in his statements of belief, the community is bound to be vocal, and the corporations might want changes to the GPL that suit them but not the community or RMS. I look forward to the posting of GPL v3 with much anticipation, much interest, and perhaps a little misgiving...
(Log in to post comments)
Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote Posted Apr 25, 2005 21:36 UTC (Mon) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] Anyone else feel worried that it could get nasty?I don't expect it to. The reason corporations and the community have embraced the GPL is that the vision behind it actually serves their needs. Since there hasn't been a big change in the vision, I expect there to only be a little controversy over hammering out the fine details. Certainly anyone unhappy with GPLv3 can continue using GPLv2. Although it is somewhat customary to do so, the copyright holder does not have to include the "or any later version" clause. Personally, I don't like the idea of providing software under a license that could be changed at any time by another party. While I do not believe that Richard Stallman or Eben Moglen would put any terms in a future version of the GPL that I would dislike, there's the remote chance that they could both get run over by a bus or something, and someone else take over the FSF and change its direction. I don't expect that to happen, and certainly very much hope that it will not, but because of that possibility my own GPL'd software has been released with an explicit statement that it is covered by the GPLv2 only, and not any later version. If the GPLv3 meets with my approval (and I fully expect that it will), I will release future versions under GPLv3.
Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote Posted Apr 25, 2005 23:27 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] There is an "or" in "or any later version". That means it is up to the end user if they wish to license the software under GPL v2 or v3 (or v4, and so on). So your users are safe to ignore any future evil Stallmans changes if they wish. As if that wasn't enough, as the author you also get to relicense future versions under any license you wish (even if you've signed copyright waivers to the FSF). As I understand the license, even the worst case won't be a problem.
Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote Posted Apr 25, 2005 23:52 UTC (Mon) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] I'm not worried about the GPL becoming more restrictive; as you've pointed out, the "or" clause would allow end users to stick to the older license. But if the GPL became less restrictive, the "or" clause could be a problem.For instance, if I used the "or" clause, and the FSF released GPLv37 which said that the software could be used in military robots with mind control beam projectors without needing the source code to be released, I'd be SOL; there'd be no way for me to retract that permission. Thus I don't use the "or" clause. I don't expect that the FSF will do such a thing, but by not using the "or" clause I can completely avoid the problem. When it turns out that I actually am happy with GPLv3, v4, etc, I can easily enough change over to using them. Eric
Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote Posted May 5, 2005 21:20 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "When it turns out that I actually am happy with GPLv3, v4, etc, I can easily enough change over to using them."
Assuming that you are still alive. There are tradeoffs whichever way you choose to go on this issue. If you care about the future situation after you are gone that is.
all the best,
drew
Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote Posted Apr 26, 2005 18:15 UTC (Tue) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link] I don't expect that to happen, and certainly very much hope that it will not, but because of that possibility my own GPL'd software has been released with an explicit statement that it is covered by the GPLv2 only, and not any later version. If the GPLv3 meets with my approval (and I fully expect that it will), I will release future versions under GPLv3.The problem is that if your code contains code copyright by other people you need approval of them for a license change, even for a change from GPLv2 only to GPLv2 or GPLv3.
|
|
||||||||||||