"Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...
Posted Oct 5, 2006 13:17 UTC (Thu) by mingo
Parent article: Similar in spirit?
Another area in the GPLv3 where i see significant departure from the spirit of the GPLv2 is the issue of whether the GPL controls "other, independent works" not based on any GPL-ed code. The GPLv2 speaks very clearly about this in Section 2:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
This language is not present in the GPLv3, and indeed the GPLv3 tries to extend its reach to certain works not created by us and not based on any GPL-ed code: parts of the hardware (certain keys). For now.
While this might sound like a technicality, it corrupts a core principle of the GPLv2 and opens up the floodgates: it fundamentally changes the simple, powerful and fair "we give you source code if you give back all source code based on this code" rule to something that is open-ended. We needed 10 years to convince developers that the GPLv2 rule is fair and square, we lived for 15 years with this property of the GPLv2 and participated in the writing of a huge, more than 1 billion lines of code GPL ecosystem, so the bargain should not be changed now, without our consent.
No-one on the FSF side so far was willing to limit the scope of this change. For example will future versions of the GPL attempt to prohibit non-GPL-licensed works to be distributed together with GPL-ed works? This open-ended isolation of the GPL ecosystem, at the behest of the FSF, is just as dangerous (if not more dangerous) than the whole DRM language.
Or as Linus has
said it on lkml, more than 6 years ago:
There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing
to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such
Linus has been consistent on that ever since, and that fundamental objection of him still stands. No amount of participation in the GPLv3 process seems to have removed this fundamental flaw from the GPLv3, in 6 years of "consultation".
to post comments)