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

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

Posted Feb 7, 2007 22:54 UTC (Wed) by gerv (subscriber, #3376)
In reply to: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) by bronson
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)

If every file which has a GPL header has the "or later" language, then that entire codebase can be used under GPLv3 terms as well as GPLv2. (Any code under other licences which is compatible with GPLv2 will be compatible with GPLv3.)

COPYING defines the distribution terms of the aggregate body, yes. It also serves as the copy of the GPL that the GPL headers say must be present. However, the question is not "what are the terms attached to Linus's release of kernel x.y.z", but "can I change those terms to GPLv3?". And the answer to that question lies solely in the GPL headers on each file.

If a file has no header at all, I'm not sure what the legal position is. I would suggest that it's under the terms of the code surrounding it. But I don't know if a court has ever ruled on this.

(Log in to post comments)

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

Posted Feb 8, 2007 6:33 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

It seems clear to me but of course IANAL...

If a file was contributed without any license information, I can see only one way to interpret this... We can't assume it was intended to be public domain since basically everything is under copyright unless those rights are expressly waived (in the US since 1970 anyway). The court can only guess that the contributing author(s) intended to use the project's umbrella license. But, you're right, this hasn't been ruled on yet.

"Any code under other licences which is compatible with GPLv2 will be compatible with GPLv3."

That's not true is it? I could write a license that's compatible with the GPLv2 and also requires Tivoization ("you must keep your signing key private"). That hypothetical license would be compatible with the GPLv2 and yet incompatible with the last draft of the GPLv3.

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

Posted Feb 8, 2007 9:51 UTC (Thu) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link]

Pedant :-) Yes, you can imagine a licence for which that is not true. But all the licences used in the Linux kernel in this universe (BSD variants and such) fit that profile.