GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:36 UTC (Fri) by drag
In reply to: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
I've said it before, but I'll say it again because I think it's a cool idea.
If a project is GPLv2, but would like to upgade to GPLv3 then one of the big things they could would be to either dual license it GPLv2 and GPLv3 or add a exception to the GPLv3 for backward compatability.
This would be to show people that if your moving to GPLv3 that your not doing it to force anybody and it wouldn't require other projects to move to GPLv3 in order to remain compatable. This should avoid a lot of fights.
Also if the GPLv3 turns out to be a flop in practice then this enables you to go back to GPLv2 if you have to without headaches.
Then if/when the GPLv3 becomes widely adopted and there is no longer any sort of compatability problems with other people's software and such then you can move to pure GPLv3 and then get all the benifits of the updates to the license.
I think that this would allow a nice transition from one to another. It may take a few years to get it all the way done, but I think that will be worth it to avoid project forking and infighting.
Much in the same way that my computer is 64bit, but retains 32bit compatability. There is a few issues that cause me to need to have some 32bit applications but that is getting less and less important everyday and eventually it will just stop mattering.
to post comments)