No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 20:10 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270)
Parent article: No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

It's weird that the rules on the "New Project Registration" page say "Your project does not have to be part of the GNU project or be released under the GPL to be hosted here..." and "we only accept Free Software licenses that are compatible with the GPL". So, apparently they don't consider the GPL to be compatible with the GPL...

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 20:36 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] (12 responses)

GPL V2, if stripped of the 'or later versions clause', will not be compatible with GPL V3. That's never been hidden, it's always been known. Even before work on GPL V3 was started, that was expected. No surprise.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:43 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

Well, they say "compatible with the GPL", not "compatible with GPLv3" or "compatible with all versions of the GPL". The language (on the New Project page) allowing use of any GPL-compatible license is pretty meaningless if the only thing they actually accept as GPL-compatible is "GPLv* and any later version".

If they have a policy of requiring the "or later" clause, they ought to say so up-front. It would be [very mildly] interesting to know whether there are any existing projects in Savannah that were licensed under a specific version.

[Note that I have no problem with them having such a restriction, if they choose. As noted, there are lots of other repositories available. It's just amusing to see them say that the GPLv2 isn't compatible with the GPL...].

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:46 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (6 responses)

Also, note that the New Project page contains a link to a list of GPL-Compatible licenses. That list, of course, includes the GPL, without any mention of requiring the optional "or later" clause.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 1:03 UTC (Thu) by DrHook (guest, #27637) [Link] (5 responses)

I don't follow this issue very closely, but the idea that *anyone* would adopt the *or later* clause without knowing the contents of said *later* license is a bit ridiculous! It's kinda like saying "Here's my code, you may use it under these conditions or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!" That would seem to allow the FSF to change the rules and conditions in ways that the original author never intended and would seem to lock that author into a *later* version of the GPL against his/her will.

*IF* I have interpreted this correctly, this would seem to be on par with some of the underhanded and sneaky methods of the evil empire in Redmond.

hook

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 3:03 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] (4 responses)

It's kinda like saying "Here's my code, you may use it under these conditions or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!"

Well, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe the FSF will work to keep my code Free in the way I intend.

The likelihood of the FSF betraying that trust is roughly that of the Reverend Mr. Falwell opening an abortion clinic.

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 9:54 UTC (Thu) by gouyou (guest, #30290) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe the FSF will work to keep my code Free in the way I intend.

The likelihood of the FSF betraying that trust is roughly that of the Reverend Mr. Falwell opening an abortion clinic.

Fine for believers, but if you think that the ASP loophole is a feature and not a bug, then you have a problem. It may happen that your interpretation of freedom will derive from the FSF interpretation of freedom in the future. (Might not be that much a problem as your code is still available under the GPL v2, but later mixing with GPL v3 contribution could land you in legal trouble.)

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 9:59 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

That's why you say "OR later versions". The end user gets to choose whether he wants to use your code under whatever GPL version he prefers.

Of course, after the FSF has blessed GPLv3 they will want people to change that line to "v3 or later versions" but if you don't like how v3 turned out you can just abstain that change.

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 12:41 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually, the FSF is legally obliged to keep your code free...

Well, that might not QUITE be true, but the comment about "or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!" is completely off the wall - may I refer you to the GPL v2 for confirmation?

If you read the GPL, you will notice that it says - AS PART OF THE GPL ITSELF - that any revisions will comply with spirit of the current version. So if I release my code under "GPL v2 or later", and then the FSF releases (in twenty years time?) GPL v5 that does *not* comply with the spirit of free software, then I can simply say (with reason) why I consider that v5 is not a true successor to v2. At this point, I now stand a very good chance of going to law and having v5 struck down as a valid licence for my work. Just because it's called the GPL, doesn't mean it's a valid successor. It's got to comply with the explicit promise in v2 for that to be true.

Cheers,
Wol

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 23:19 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

Umm, the GPL i a license that an author might choose to use to control distribution of her code. While the FSF controlled the writing of that license, I don't think there's any legal sense in which the "similar in spirit" clause actually constrains the FSF or future versions of the GPL. Nor is there any way an author can "retract" the "or later version" language once the code has been distributed under that license - anybody receiving a version under a license containing the "or any later version" language is free to choose any such version, whether it's in the same spirit or not. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that once you've set the license terms, you're stuck with them (though you could, of course, use different license language for a later version - as the author, you can specify the terms you like each time you distribute the code.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 12:34 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

I thought v3 was carefully worded so it WAS compatible with v2.

Cheers,
Wol

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 14:54 UTC (Thu) by southey (guest, #9466) [Link] (1 responses)

Nope, the v3 is not fully compatible with v2 at least with the current optional v3 clauses that can be applied. For example, one v3 clause is that the complete code must be released that would include any non-GPL code so a GPL v3 program linked to a source library (nor necessarily closed) that is incompatible under v3 with the complete code cause. This also bites a GPL v2 or later license if the 'or later' aspect is invoked.

Bruce

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 24, 2006 2:46 UTC (Fri) by mepr (guest, #4819) [Link]

If the "or later" clause is included, then who gets to choose which parts of the optional license apply?
If the author, then no it doesn't.
If the user, then it's mostly irrelevant (although it would be interesting if the user chose restrictions the original author didn't like, made changes, and released the new derived work under the more restricted GPL3

Mark

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 17:59 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Impossible. Either it grants you the exact same as GPLv2 does, or it takes away something. If the former, why bother. If the later, it is not compatible, by definition. Besides, the draft as circulated has the option of creating variants of GPLv3 (with extra restrictions) that will end up being incompatible among them...

Besides, my code might be GPLv2, but if GPLv3 contributions seep in, the only valid license for the whole is GPLv3 (as it is more restrictive than GPLv2). Just like Linux has BSD licenced pieces, but the whole must be handled as GPLed.