Just a question about the GPLv3 [LWN.net]

Just a question about the GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:26 UTC (Tue) by atai (subscriber, #10977)
In reply to: Just a question about the GPLv3 by JoeF
Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF

What is this? FUD? A project can decide if they will impose this requirement or not, and to accept code contributions from someone with a different view from the maintainers' or not. One can imagine a project like an OS kernel will not impose this, but a content management system will.

(Log in to post comments)

Just a question about the GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:36 UTC (Tue) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]

Oh, sure. And how many will? Peer pressure, etc... The "Slashdot crowd", for example...
And I suggest not throwing the "FUD" hammer around when it is completely inappropriate. Learn to discuss things. You can scream "FUD" on Slashdot.

Reasons for such a clause

Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:44 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Eben Moglen has emphasized many times something that I feel is an
important fact to invoke at this juncture. The drafting process of the
GPLv3 means that the Free Software Foundation is currently engaged in
making decisions about a license that will lay the ground rules for
future dealings in copyleft. The license impacts not only garage hackers
in Pakistan but multi-national corporations with billions of dollars of
interest in free software.

One of the aims of GPLv3 is to have a little additional flexibility.
There are some people who expected this license to enforce redistribution
of modifications in the case of web services; however, many believe that
would go too far. The FSF's answer to this has been to default to the
conservative case while allowing a GPLv3 user to individually decide this
matter for themselves.

Just a question about the GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 6:02 UTC (Tue) by pynm0001 (guest, #18379) [Link]

Well, it is FUD though. Your argument that having a feature of GPLv3
which is optional will become standard because some individuals will use
smacks of the whole GPL-as-cancer argument that used to be trumpeted by
Microsoft.

If a project doesn't want to use that feature of the GPL, then they
won't. Developers who don't abide by the license in use by the project
will not be allowed to contribute code, just as with any other open
source project. What's so hard to understand?

When I put code in kdelibs, it's put in as LGPL or less restrictive in
order to match the existing license. I don't get to cherry pick my
terms. If I tried to do so the code would be reverted, and rightfully
so.

Just a question about the GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 7:22 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]

But it is, you make it sound like it's impossible to avoid, and it definitely isn't...

Just a question about the GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:11 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

atai, I think Jeff is thinking of the following:

A project does not have a central body that gets all copyright assigned to it. Abel is a contributor and makes that he wants this additional part to be valid. Does the entire code then need to have to be distributed by anyone who uses it for a web app, or just his patches?

I would say no, but that would probably need to be litigated and the contract be found valid/non-valid under US/Euro/etc law. Code groups would have to be more diligent in who/how/when they got their patches from to make sure that people knew that their patches were only accepted under the top level license and not any optional license. This in some locales could only be enforced by a signed contract... which is the nightmare scenario that some are worried about.

Just a question about the GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:13 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Been there, done that. Remember XFree86 ? This project destroyed itself with this exact type of nonsense.

Of course if most contributors will agree that some additional restriction will be good - then it's other story. But single one... don't make me laugh...