GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) [LWN.net]

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:36 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) by JoeBuck
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.

(Log in to post comments)

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 12:47 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Well the point is to move gradually to the GPLv3 license.

This way you can make sure that everybody involved in the project would be onboard for it because you know would know that anybody contributing code will understand that it will probably be under the GPLv3 license eventually.

This will give time for people to mull it over and give time for the real-world effect of the GPLv3 to sink in instead of jumping full bore into it and pressuring people to make a desicion right away.

Plus you would have people who contribute code to your project do it under the same dual license so that the patent language goes into effect.

Another variation of the idea would be to release the project tarballs and binaries under the GPLv3, but have a linking exception with GPLv2 code as well as make it project policy that if a GPLv2 licensed project would like to use source code then that would be fine.

GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

Posted Jan 26, 2007 14:09 UTC (Fri) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link]

>This way you can make sure that everybody involved in the project would be onboard for it because you know would know that anybody contributing code will understand that it will probably be under the GPLv3 license eventually. [..] Plus you would have people who contribute code to your project do it under the same dual license

I don't see the difference if you say to a contributor: "You have to dual-license your code under GPLv2 and GPLv3", "You have to license you code under GPLv3 plus my special backward clause" or "You have to license you code under GPLv2 or later".

You always have to ask contributors for a special license and you always achieve the same but using "GPLv2 or later" is imho the easiest and most common way.

GPL 3: What is the fuss all about?

Posted Jan 26, 2007 15:46 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

don't see the difference if you say to a contributor: "You have to dual-license your code under GPLv2 and GPLv3", "You have to license you code under GPLv3 plus my special backward clause" or "You have to license you code under GPLv2 or later".

There are certainly differences... "GPLv2 or v3" is not the same as "GPLv2 or later" (this would include GPLv4!), "GPLv3 + backward clause" is not the same as "GPLv2" either. Etc.

And please don't lose sight of the fact that the anti-DRM provisions in GPLv2 are the problem here. I agree with Linus that if I get Linux on, say, a wireless router or any other type of appliance, I should not be automatically able to run any other junk on that machine. It is quite reasonable for the manufacturer of certain devices to restrict what they can do (it might be even mandated by law), be it by physical limits or software-enforced ones. And in the current world, where it is already much cheaper (and better) to control a washing machine or elevator by software and not mechanically, this later case will be ever more prevalent. I still can take the source code to Linux I get with such a device and run it elsewhere.

Also, please do remember that GPLed software (and open source in general) is a tiny minority in all software that is out there, even more so in the areas where GPLv3 anti-DRM provisions could make some difference. Changing the license of a piece of software to prohibit some uses will make no difference whatsoever, except for making certain people feel self-important.

GPL 3: What is the fuss all about?

Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:04 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Well.. the 'Anti-DRM' clause isn't designed to prevent the use of DRM or discourage it.

Just like the clause stating that you have to distribute source code if your redistribute GPL'd software is not designed to try to make other people (say microsoft) open source their programs.

It's designed to protect the '4 freedoms'. It is essentially a way to attempt to enforce the idea that you can't make GPL software non-Free (by FSF/GNU's definition). Either refusal to release code or using encryption to enforce specific software versions the effect on end users is the same.

In all actuality if somebody (Sun has a project to do just this) releases open source software that is able to succcessfully impliment DRM, even if you try to modify the code, then you could license that under the GPLv3.

Also if you would like to use GPLv3 software to play back DRM content or control hardware that impliments DRM, then that is fine also.