Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:54 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Generally speaking it seems that the license choices of the major contributors are respected even if the license can be 'upgraded' to the GPL.

Look at the large number of BSD-licensed software. A major example is PostgreSQL. If there is any peice of software poised for a 'GPL Takover' then that one would be one! But I don't think I've ever heard of anybody trying to 'take over' PostgreSQL with a GPL'd license (although I am sure that it's used in inumerable propriatory products).

There are numerious projects on non-copyleft licenses like zlib and such.

Also don't forget that the GPLv3 is due for a few more revisions before it gets out there. People are all excited right now because it's new and the debates help people figure out what is going on. (I know it helps me a lot)

I think that if the majority of the people in a GPLv2 or later project want it to remain GPLv2 or later then I think that most of them will be fine.

*shrug*

I think the majority of the fights are going to be with people who have "GPLv2 only" style licenses. These people usually had a reason to distrust the FSF/RMS stuff and while the "GPLv2 and later" crowd have little problem integrating with GPLv3 code from other projects (probably all it would take would be a nice email for permission to GPlv2 the code)..

the "GPLv2 only" people will probably end up with huge fights when people try to take them to "GPLv2 or later" for "better compatability" with other programs. The original people that choose the license in the first place will probably perceive it as a underhanded attempt to take their project to GPLv3.. while the other side of the internal project debate will want to see the project gain compatability with GPLv3 code rather then risk going of into irrelevency. (definately not talking about the Linux kernel here, it has it's own special rules)

Posted Oct 5, 2006 23:32 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

there is not a similar body of people determined to eliminate the LGPL

What about the own proponent of the license, Richard Stallman?

Also, the 'license compatability advantage' of GPLv3 is meaningless if a project is trying to maintain GPLv2 compatability.

Not if you just take advantage of the "or later" clause; switch to GPLv3 all those things that are GPLv2 "or later" and you can be compatible with Apache code.

the FSF is intending for result 2, but unfortunantly I expect result 3 to take place.

Frankly, we don't need this FUD. Notice how njs in the parent comment says that his biggest fear is not with any GPLv3 clauses, but with the split it might cause. Even our favorite editor seems to think the same way.

That is what many people seem to be trying here on LWN: creating division, crying: "Stop this licensing madness!" I for one am happy that Stallman is not one to change his mind under pressure, even if on other occasions it has worked to the detriment of free software.