Remember the other side [LWN.net]

Remember the other side

Posted Oct 2, 2006 19:19 UTC (Mon) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093)
Parent article: Busy busy busybox

There is a lot of discussion here about:
developers who agreed to the 'or later' clause being (potentially) angry about an (alleged) abuse of 'similar in spirit'.

No-one has mentioned the alternate case: the developers who didn't explicitly include 'or later', but are perfectly happy for the FSF to make the changes it has.

Stallman has a tendency to be right - and I am quite happy to release my own code under GPL v.3. In fact, I'd prefer an even stronger anti-DRM, anti-patent, anti-binary-module position.

There is one moral though: if you accept contributions from many people, you must either log in detail who contributed what, or they must assign copyright to you.

(Log in to post comments)

Remember the other side

Posted Oct 3, 2006 3:01 UTC (Tue) by alfille (subscriber, #1631) [Link]

Whether a developer likes the DRM provisions or what ever isn't truly the point.

We were told that the "or later" wording was to protect us in case there were legal problems with the current GPL v2 license. Fundemental changes may be covered, but they are a breach of trust.

An analogy: I sign a blank credit card receipt when I rent a car to cover damage/theft. Technically any charges made would be legal, but certainly not our tacit understanding.

The real problem is that we should have authorized GPL v2.x, not GPL v3

Paul Alfille

Remember the other side

Posted Oct 3, 2006 6:30 UTC (Tue) by walken (subscriber, #7089) [Link]

> We were told that the "or later" wording was to protect us in case there were legal problems with the current GPL v2 license.

But I think that *is* the case: if you agree with the idea that end users should be free to modify the software or hire someone to do so, which was the goal as documented in the gnu manifesto, then the locked-down tivo scenario IS a legal problem. The license is being updated to close that loophole, I dont think this is out of line with what the FSF said about the "or later" wording.

Remember the other side

Posted Oct 3, 2006 13:47 UTC (Tue) by alfille (subscriber, #1631) [Link]

Anti-DRM may be a logical extension of FSF ideals, but it isn't part of GPL v2.

As a developer, I'm more interested in seeing my code used, and seeing what new ideas and directions others take it in. GPL v2 covers that perfectly.

I had hoped that the "or later" really would just cover fixing language and tuning to current law, not extending philosophy.

Paul Alfille

Remember the other side

Posted Oct 4, 2006 9:02 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

If you want to criticise the FSF, write they are stubborn fools, not that they "breached trust". They've been nothing but consistent over the years, repeating again and again what their aims were and that the GPL was their tool to achieve them.

You may disagree with the FSF aims, but claiming surprise now is a bit rich.

Fact :
1. the FSF had announced the possibility of a GPL v2+ for years (that's why the "or later" clause is there after all)
2. the FSF aims and intent have always been well known (if anything RMS and the FSF have taken flack over the years for hammering them at every possible occasion)
3. you don't need to be a genius to understand an GPL v2+ could only harden the licensing terms, as a loosening would have been a lot of work for no win
4. in the last years Linus made a lot of noise (relayed and amplified in many media) about the "or later" implications
5. the GPLv3 review process has been going on for some time, so "discovering" the GPLv3 now is a bit rich (hell I've seen a PHB-oriented GPLv3 presentation months ago by people which had nothing to do with the FSF)

I can understand grumblings about the inconvenience of the FSF writing a GPLv3 now, but all the "how dare they write a GPLv3" really fly off the mark. One thing you can't accuse RMS and the FSF of is not being clear on their intent.

What people could legitimatelly complain at is the GPLv3 wording, and there is still room to amend/simplify it. Unfortunately it seems the fiercest GPLv3 bashers didn't even spend the time to analyse the GPLv3 text or propose alternatives, preferring to go into deep denial, and refering to third-party distorted accounts of the GPLv3 text.