is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 8:15 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525)
In reply to: is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2? by mingo
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

The kernel has a GPLv2-only license

This is a misinterpretation of Linus' comment at the beginning of the COPYING file in the kernel. Linus can't change the GPL, since the GPL itself is copyrighted by the FSF. He also can't change the license conditions of the original authors of all the files that went into Linux until he made that commend (in the 2.4.0-test series). So what he can do is to clarify under which conditions he's redistributing the assembly of all those GPL and BSD licensed files. And that's "under GPLv2".

As he did single-handedly choose this condition, he can also single-handedly choose to rethink. It's his right to choose the conditions unter which he's distributing the kernel, because all GPLv2 code is GPLv2 or later unless explicitely stated otherwise - by the author (as recipient, you get a direct license from the author, so the author has to say something)! So far, no author of Linux other than Linus himself has made such a statement - if you grep the kernel for copyright statements in file headers, you find that roughly one fourth of the kernel is explicitely GPLv2 or later, and the remaining three fourth don't say anything.

BTW: The FSF requires each file of a FSF project to contain an explicit copyright notice, and this also solves the hijacking problem: You simply take the e.g. ssl.c out of libssl, and state that it is under the Apache license, and that's it. It's compatible to GPLv3, so can be included in a GPLv3 distribution, and it by itself also stays under Apache license. The hijacking is only a problem when you do it like Linus and the other kernel hacker do it: Change the copyright notice on the file. From a tit-for-tat point of view, this is not fair.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:22 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] (1 responses)

"all GPLv2 code is GPLv2 or later unless explicitely stated otherwise"

nope. All GPLv2 is v2-only unless explicitely stated otherwise. Clause 9
says that "If the Program <b>does not specify a version number</b> of this
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation." It means if you specify v2, it's v2 only.

look:

IOW: 126 instances of GPL-v2, 124 of them being v2-only.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:59 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

Please learn to grep. The term used to declare GPL version 2 or later is fixed, and it spells out as:

This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

I find a whooping 4631 files with exactly this text in my /usr/src/linux directory. And the GPL v2 explicitely states that you can choose any later license. If the author does not state any version, you can choose whatever version you like (Section 9). Please read the GPL! It's right in /usr/src/linux, just skipp below the comment from Linus. The majority of the Linux kernel does not specify any version (apart from your 124 files), Linus comment is just for himself (he chose to use GPLv2 to redistribute; he's entitled to do that, it doesn't change the state of the original work, since the GPL is very precise that you get all the rights only from the original authors).