Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
Posted Jun 12, 2007 21:04 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091)In reply to: Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS by dlang
Parent article: Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
True:
When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too. There is no way to make them compatible.
Posted Jun 13, 2007 8:20 UTC (Wed)
by forthy (guest, #1525)
[Link] (5 responses)
The FSF took great efforts that GPL versions can be made compatible.
The paragraph that deals with it is section 9 of the GPL. Read it,
especially the last part - many files in the Linux kernel are not
explicitely restricted to a specific GPL versions, which means "any
version". And section 6 makes sure that everybody receives a license from
the original licensor, not from a compilation editor like Linus
Torvalds. The compilation editor (Linus Torvalds) can set terms under which he
redistributes the work, i.e. conditions he has to follow. But since
everybody receives the license from the original licensors,
this "restriction" is null and void, you still can make a compilation
yourself which does not restrict the license version, and then, most
parts of Linux are compatible with GPLv3 (because you can either choose
any GPL or explicitely v2 or later).
Posted Jun 13, 2007 9:37 UTC (Wed)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (4 responses)
Meanwhile, relicensing all files under a "v2 or later" license might seem to be a necessary first step to a GPLv3 kernel. But given Linus' reluctance to blanket license, I would rather expect a "dual v2-v3" license, if the migration is to be done at all.
Posted Jun 13, 2007 13:09 UTC (Wed)
by job (guest, #670)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 13, 2007 13:36 UTC (Wed)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:56 UTC (Wed)
by notamisfit (guest, #40886)
[Link]
Posted Jun 14, 2007 1:59 UTC (Thu)
by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
[Link]
Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
That kind of compatibility is not much help, unless all of the kernel is licensed as "v2 or later". As long as there is a single file licensed under "v2 only", it becomes impossible to link with a single "v3 only" file.
Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
Maaaybe there was a good reason why the FSF recommended the use of "v2 or later" licensing. Then you basically leave the choice to the user. I never understood what Linus didn't like about that, except some unspecified fear of the FSF, which would be not only ridicolous but also unfortunate.Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
It is not so unreasonable: Linus said:
Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
How can you _ever_ sign anything sight unseen? That's just
stupid, and that's totally regardless of any worries about the FSF.
Said that way, it looks like the correct thing to do. However, given that (as you say) "v2 or later" licensing gives the choice to the user, I'm not particularly worried about misuse.
It creates the possibility that code created in a downstream work may not be usable upstream. Linus has put his cards on the table in the past; he wants code back. Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS
Instead of "ridiculous and unfortunate" I would say "justified by current events."Linus on GPLv3 and ZFS