| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?
Posted Apr 26, 2005 2:21 UTC (Tue) by xtifr (subscriber, #143)In reply to: Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? by xav
Parent article: Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote
Another point that was hinted at but not directly addressed in the previous responses: the new Apache license (and some similar licenses) have some restrictions on patent abuse. These restrictions are not compatible with the GPL v2, but are considered by the FSF (and many others) to be perfectly reasonable and even desirable otherwise. So, basically, the plan at this point is to modify the GPL to be fully compatible with the Apache license, rather than try to force the Apache Foundation to remove desirable features from their license. (The current situation, where the Apache license and the GPL are incompatible is livable, but not ideal.)
(Log in to post comments)
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?
Posted Apr 26, 2005 14:01 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
Now *THAT* has to be a first. The GPL chaging to accomodate *OTHER* licenses.
Will wonders never cease? ;-)
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?
Posted Apr 27, 2005 3:31 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]
It isn't the first time they've made changes when the GPL's terms had unforseen/undesirable consequences. For example, the GPL v1 meant that you couldn't put a copy of a GPL program (with source) and a proprietary program onto a single CD and distribute it. The GPL was changed to allow "mere aggregation" in version 2 to allow it.
If the FSF thinks that some form of patent defense is a good thing in a license and the GPL causes problems due to its incompatibility with such terms, why do you think they wouldn't change?