every other major copyleft *forces* you to allow later license versions

every other major copyleft *forces* you to allow later license versions

Posted Oct 4, 2006 11:56 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
In reply to: every other major copyleft *forces* you to allow later license versions by viro
Parent article: Busy busy busybox

So for any pool of code under GPLv2-or-later, we now have the possibility of two forms of parasitic forking :
- GPLv2 only
- GPLv3 only

GPLv2-or-later is a no-go now for DRM proponents because of the GPLv3 forking potential, and it's a no go for DRM oponents because of the impossibility to enforce GPLv3 terms. Both camps agree on killing it.

The first fork option is offensive to people who have contributed believing in the FSF ideals, and expecting a GPLv3 someday should the GPLv2 prove insufficient to enforce them. The second one is offensive to those who have contributed based on a careful analysis of GPLv2 terms, and how they could workaround FSF ideals while complying with the GPLv2. Both forks can be taken as a betrayal.

So we have a polarization. We have hostile forks. It's easy to blame the FSF and the GPL v3 process for it.

The root cause however is the people who managed to dissocate the GPLv2 wording from the GPLv2 original intent by building "clever" business models. They knew perfectly well then they were sitting on the wishes of some GPLv2 contributors. Their actions were divisive, and their natural result (GPL update and pressure to drop the GPLv2) should have been obvious to everyone.

The free software community will have to choose sides now. Including all the people who didn't care one way or another. But make no mistake, GPLv2-only is not the neutral choice. It ceased being so once people mixed software patents and DRM in the software distribution process. That's when the community consensus was broken.

---

(Log in to post comments)