Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:02 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413)
In reply to: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) by Zack
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

> > I for one dont trust Richard Stallman anymore - and apparently Linus
> > neither. And picking the next version of the GPL is very much trust-based
> > for me.

> That's why it's *you* who picks the next version of the GPL for
> your software, as it specifically says "(at your option)" in:
> "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

This kind of misses the issue. If I write some code under the GPLv2 (or later), and then GPLvLater comes out and changes the rules of the road in very significant ways that I do not accept, it's not _my_ choice as to whether people license y code under GPLvLater, anyone can apply this new license even if I find it totally unconscionable. I can of course continue to license changes to my code under GPLv2 (or later), but the unconscionable license may become the one generally used.

Now, I'm not claiming (in this post) anything in either direction about whether GPLv3 will substantially change the rules in objctionable ways, but the issue remains that changing it in ways that GPLv2(or later) coders do not appreciate would be a seriously unpleasant business for programmers who have done so.

to post comments

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:13 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (1 responses)

This kind of misses the issue. If I write some code under the GPLv2 (or later), and then GPLvLater comes out and changes the rules of the road in very significant ways that I do not accept, it's not _my_ choice as to whether people license y code under GPLvLater, anyone can apply this new license even if I find it totally unconsciable. I can of course continue to license changes to my code under GPLv2 (or later), but the unconscionable license may become the one generally used.

Exactly. For example, i might become supportive of the GPLv3 later on if it's modified sufficiently - but still if i saw people (contributors) coherently arguing that it's unacceptable to them then i'd be uneasy to force it on them - because once introduced, the GPLv3 license is constructed in a way so that code would "gravitate" towards the one pure GPLv3 license. We really, really have to be careful and unify a large majority of current contributors under the GPLv3 umbrella. Saying that "oh it was all written into the GNU Manifesto, sorry" or "you can list extra permissions/restrictions" is not enough to keep a community unified.

Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Posted Sep 27, 2006 12:27 UTC (Wed) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link]

That is exactly the same way with GPLv2, though.

You can, if you feel so inclined, strip the additional permissions to you granted in libgcc's license, or strip those granted to you for g++'s standard libraries, or even those in gcj.

You can even take LGPLd code, and convert it to GPLv2 licensed code, and accordingly turn the glibc into a GPLd work, or GNOME, or whatever LGPL licensed piece of code you find out there.

If there was merit to your claim, we would be seeing that LGPLd projects 'gravitate' towards GPLv2, and that GPLd projects strip off their exceptions, and all that.

I haven't seen any of that over the past years. In fact, libgmp went from GPL to LGPL with FSF's blessing. Ogg ended up being BSD licensed with FSF's blessing. Most of KDE libs, like the HTML component, are LGPLd and happily staying that way. And so on.